Animal Welfare in

Animal Agriculture
Husbandry, Stewardship, and Sustainability in Animal Production

EDITED BY

Wilson G. Pond,
Fuller W. Bazer, and
Bernard E. Rollin
Animal Welfare in
Animal Agriculture
Husbandry, Stewardship, and Sustainability in Animal Production

EDITED BY

Wilson G. Pond,
Fuller W. Bazer, and
Bernard E. Rollin

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2011 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20111202

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4398-9785-0 (eBook - PDF)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to
publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials
or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material repro-
duced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any
copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any
form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming,
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://www.copy-
right.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400.
CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been
granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifica-
tion and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
Dedication
This book is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Stanley E. Curtis, whose seminal contributions to the
advancement of the welfare and well-being of farm animals are legendary. The following excerpt
from an article* written by Dr. Curtis in 2007 provides insight into the impact of his long-time con-
tributions to the improvements of farm animal welfare. His lifetime efforts are an inspiration to all
who seek to ensure animal well-being everywhere.

An important issue in animal agriculture nowadays is the public demand for evidence that animals on
farms and ranches are being treated humanely, that animal state of being (ASB) is high most of the time.
But, right now, how should ASB be assessed in production settings?
Important as this question is, scientists have yet to reach consensus as to how to accomplish that
task. It is an unsettled area of knowledge that is seriously in need of more concerted attention. Animal-
welfare scientists represent several disciplines, and therefore approaches, guiding principles, and
vocabularies differ among them. These differences have led to confusion and misunderstanding among
interested stakeholders.
Many animal-welfare scientists, following the classic, pioneering contributions of observations and
thought by I.J.H. Duncan (Duncan and Wood-Gush, 1971; Duncan, 1996, 2001), have concluded that
assessing ASB should be based mostly on animal feelings (Dawkins, 1980; McMillan, 2005). This
ultimately may be the ideal methodology. But unfortunately, right now we are unable for certain to
measure animal feelings (e.g., anxiety, fear, frustration, and pain) directly, objectively, and scientifically
in the laboratory, let alone is it possible to do so in a production setting. (“Measure” herein is used in
the sense of “to ascertain the extent or quantity of by comparison with a standard.”) As Duncan (2002)
has pointed out, the measurement of the behavior patterns postulated to be correlated with negative
conscious feelings in animals can itself be objective and scientific. It is at the step of the interpretation
of such observations of behavior in terms of any associated ill feelings where the feelings approach is
still scientifically uninformed and wanting with respect to the practical usefulness of that approach on
farms and ranches today.
So, until such time as we do know how to interpret putative behavioral indicators of reduced animal
feelings, and how to quantitatively transform those indicators into valid measures of animal feelings,
some are instead advocating the use of objectively measurable animal-performance traits as indicators.
The bases of this performance-based approach include 1) the principle that what cannot be measured
cannot be managed; 2) the fact that we now can objectively measure productive and reproductive per-
formance traits but not animal feelings; and 3) the fact that reductions in performance traits are early,
sensitive indicators that ASB is being deleteriously affected.
Much of the impediment to answering the big question of how to assess ASB may reside in the
fact that many — probably most — animal-welfare scientists have virtuously dismissed an approach
based on animal functions and performance, favoring instead an approach based mostly or totally

* We are deeply grateful to Dr. Wayne Kellogg, Editor in-Chief, Professional Animal Scientist, for his efforts in grant-
ing permission to publish in this college textbook the “Introduction” to a manuscript titled “Commentary: Performance
Indicates Animal State of Being: A Cinderella Axiom,” written by Dr. Curtis and published in The Professional Animal
Scientist 23(2007): 573–583.
iv

on animal feelings and mind. Some hold that “animal welfare is about how the animal feels” (e.g.,
Duncan, 1996) and others that “animal welfare is characterized by the absence of behavioral prob-
lems” (e.g., Ladewig, 2003). However, still others think that animal functions and performance also
are extremely relevant.
Mench (1998a) noted a “growing sense that animal-welfare science has reached an impasse,” and
this probably owes largely to disagreement over what constitutes farm-animal welfare. This ­dichotomy
epitomizes the spirit of scientific dialogue.

Wilson Pond, Fuller Bazer, and Bernard Rollin, Editors

LITERATURE CITED
Dawkins, M. S. 1980. Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.
Duncan, I. J. H. 1996. Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agric. Scand. A. Anim. Sci. (Suppl.
27):29.
Duncan, I. J. H. 2001. Can we understand and use feelings of animals as a concept of animal welfare? In Food
Chain 2001. Proceedings of the European Union Conference. Uppsala, Sweden. Page 131.
Duncan, I. J. H. 2002. Poultry welfare: Science or subjectivity? Br. Poult. Sci. 43:643.
Duncan, I. J. H., and D. G. M. Wood-Gush. 1971. Frustration and aggression in the domestic fowl. Anim.
Behav. 19:500.
Ladewig, J. L. 2003. Of mice and men: Improved welfare through clinical ethology. In Proceedings of the 37th
International Congress of the International Society of Applied Ethology, Abano Term, Italy. Page 29.
McMillan, F. D., Ed. 2005. Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals. Blackwell Publishing Professional,
Ames, IA.
Mench, J. A. 1998a. Thirty years after Brambell: Whither animal welfare science? J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci.
1:91.
Contents
Forewords..........................................................................................................................................vii
Preface............................................................................................................................................ xiii
Contributor List................................................................................................................................. xv

SECTION One Roles of Animals in Society

Chapter 1 Perspectives on Emergence of Contemporary Animal Agriculture

in the Mid-twentieth Century: The Decline of Husbandry and
the Rise of the Industrial Model....................................................................................3
Bernard E. Rollin and Paul B. Thompson

Chapter 2 Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society....................................... 13

Wilson G. Pond, R. Anne Pearson, Kevin R. Pond, Christian E. Newcomer,
Christopher Boleman, Aaron Alejandro, and Cherie Carrabba

Chapter 3 Contributions of Animals in Human Service: A Two-Way Path................................ 37

Duane Ullrey

SECTION Two Treatment of Animals and Societal Concerns

Chapter 4 The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group:

The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.................................. 43
Robert P. Martin

Chapter 5 Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare: Varying Viewpoints and Approaches......... 75

Bernard E. Rollin, Donald M. Broom, David Fraser, Gail C. Golab, Charles
Arnot, and Paul Shapiro

Chapter 6 Contemporary Animal Agriculture: Rural Community Concerns in the

United States............................................................................................................. 121
David Andrews

Chapter 7 Implementing Effective Practices and Programs to Assess Animal Welfare........... 135
John J. McGlone and Temple Grandin

v
vi Contents

Chapter 8 Animal Welfare: Synthesizing Contemporary Animal Agriculture/

Engineering and Animal Comfort and Social Responsibility.................................. 147
Bernard E. Rollin, John J. McGlone, Judith L. Capper, Kenneth Anderson,
and Terry Engle

SECTION Three Sustainable Plant and Animal Agriculture

for Animal Welfare

Chapter 9 Symbiosis of Plants, Animals, and Microbes........................................................... 185

James Wells and Vincent Varel

Chapter 10 Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to

Animal Health and Welfare......................................................................................205
Jarret D. Stopforth, John N. Sofos, Steve L. Taylor, and Joseph L. Baumert

Chapter 11 Animal Welfare in the Context of Ecological Sustainability.................................... 233

Frederick Kirschenmann

Chapter 12 Competition between Animals and Humans for Cultivated Crops:

Livestock Production and Our Food Supply............................................................. 241
Fred Owens and Christa Hanson

Chapter 13 Crop Residues and Other Feed Resources: Inedible for

Humans but Valuable for Animals............................................................................ 263
Gregory Lardy and J.S. Caton

Chapter 14 Welfare, Health, and Biological Efficiency of

Animals through Genetics and Biotechnology......................................................... 275
Fuller W. Bazer, Duane C. Kraemer, and Alan McHughen
Forewords
ACADEMIC
Students in the twenty-first century are learning in an environment where science and tech-
nology advance at a rate that encourages rapid dissemination and implementation of ideas.
Deliberations on the morality and ethics of resulting changes occur at a much slower rate, and
generally not in the same courses that teach the science. Hence, many individuals have perspec-
tives on animal welfare that are largely influenced by public debate in the mass media, particu-
larly electronic media.
An understanding of animal welfare within the food system and of how and where changes in
production systems might need to be made requires the integration of knowledge from many fields,
the antithesis of the “pigeon-holing” that occurs so easily in academic programs and student minds.
Science and economics play critical roles, but must be seen within the context of how modern
production systems evolved. The “sound bite” approach to ethics leads to misconceptions such as
large-scale production systems being invariably careless of animal welfare and the idea that human-
ity “enslaved” other species for strictly selfish purposes.
Students need to be given opportunities to look at animal welfare in a context that includes the
historical development of animal domestication and of modern animal production systems. Animal
behavior played a critical role in the determination of which species were amenable to domestica-
tion, yet it has not had a recognized status alongside genetics, nutrition, and physiology in most
animal science curricula. Behavior is an essential monitor of animal welfare, especially in intensive
systems, and, as such, needs to be better integrated into curricula. The growth in size and intensity
of production units is in response to the explosive growth in the human population and its food
demands, with animal and human behavior and welfare intimately connected.
Academia changes with glacial speed in comparison to the world of applied science and technol-
ogy. Tradition and fiscal constraints mean that offered courses often fail to give students the training
and encouragement to integrate concepts across disciplines. The volume of factual material expands
constantly and conscious efforts must be made to offer course time that requires and encourages
students to think through the issues related to animal welfare. This ability to reflect and integrate
is essential if humans are to be capable of evaluating and improving animal welfare in modern
production systems.

Elizabeth Oltenacu, PhD

Emerita, Department of Animal Science
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

Public policy regarding the welfare of livestock and other animal species must be based on sci-
ence and reason, not emotion. There is more need now for objective research and an informed
public than ever before. Academia has been described as being largely preoccupied with lofty,
remote, or intellectual pursuits, rather than those of practical application. In reality, academia is
highly responsive to changing public attitudes and concerns, and the public is becoming increas-
ingly interested in animal welfare. Academic institutions must compete for funding from public
and private sources. Competition is also keen for the best students and for the reputation of being
cutting-edge and relevant.

vii
viii Forewords

Colleges and universities originally taught the art of animal husbandry, but when public inter-
est in science increased after World War II, the term husbandry was dropped in favor of the word
science. Recently, there has been renewed interest in changing the names of the courses that teach
husbandry back to husbandry, but as those courses are now based on the latest advances in science,
a name change is not likely.
At most colleges and universities, courses and extracurricular opportunities are reviewed regu-
larly by faculty peer groups and administrators. Input from students, alumni, and employers of grad-
uates are often solicited and may be directly incorporated into the review process. Although many
academic departments may wish to start new courses on farm animal welfare and related issues,
new courses and faculty have been difficult to add during periods of tight budgets. Many programs,
however, are responding by updating their existing courses. For example, many species-oriented
production (husbandry) courses, meats courses, applied ethology, ethics, and capstone courses are
adding modules on the audit process. Audits (Chapter 6) are a system to ensure that good husbandry
practices are being followed, so they are a natural fit into classes that already teach the latest hus-
bandry practices. These courses may also devote more time to the latest events affecting animal
welfare issues.
Extracurricular programs that provide additional opportunities for students to get involved in
animal welfare-related activities have greatly increased. In addition to the traditional judging teams,
students on many campuses have organized clubs that assist local shelters, or are otherwise involved
in animal rescue or similar projects. Quiz bowls in which students compete based on their knowl-
edge of animal husbandry have been popular for many decades. A particularly innovative pro-
gram is the annual Intercollegiate Animal Welfare and Assessment Judging Contest pioneered at
Michigan State University. Colleges and universities from Canada and the United States are invited
to send teams to two days of seminars and competition.
Interest in the field of animal welfare science has grown so much over the past 30 years that there
is a shortage of professionals with graduate training in the United States. For example, the USDA’s
Food and Agricultural Sciences National Needs Graduate and Postgraduate Fellowship Grants
Program for 2010 listed “animal well-being (ethologists; bioethicists)” as their highest priority-
targeted expertise shortage area.
One of the main goals of academia is to stimulate people to think critically and seek out alterna-
tive viewpoints. Most agricultural animal well-being issues are not simple, although special interest
groups on both sides of the issue often promote a simplistic version. With many electronic, print,
and other sources of information readily available, people can easily pick the news sound bites and
entertainment that come closest to their personal biases and avoid exposure to the other sides of
many issues.
Funding is the biggest single problem facing researchers in farm animal welfare science.
Producer and commodity groups have and continue to make significant contributions to animal wel-
fare research, although their resources are very limited. The USDA’s competitive grants programs
have been the largest source of funding in the United States, although the funds need to be greatly
increased and the success rates of receiving funding for proposals submitted to the program are
generally 20% or less. People often ask animal welfare and activist groups for assistance in funding
research projects, but the answer is almost always no. One problem is what is known in the business
as “the vegan police,” the more radical members who do not support any research.
Extension programs have been at the forefront of creating quality assurance and auditing pro-
grams that have had an industry-wide impact. Most major meetings of state and national producer
organizations include demonstrations of low-stress handling, and those demonstrations attract the
largest crowds. Educational programs on proper animal handling, best practices, auditing, and
emergency euthanasia of livestock are not only in demand at extension meetings with farmers
and ranchers, but are also requested by auction barns, slaughter plants, and livestock transport
companies.
Forewords ix

In conclusion, academia is needed more than ever to help policymakers and the public make
rational decisions regarding animal welfare, environmental, and ethical issues.

Ted H. Friend, PhD

Department of Animal Science
Texas A & M University, College Station, TX

In the past, welfare research has concentrated on prevention of negative welfare aspects such as
hunger, thirst, inadequate feed, injuries, disease, and fear or chronic stress. The current research is
more focused on stimulation of positive welfare aspects. Welfare is more than prevention of suffer-
ing. It also includes the satisfaction of desires and needs of animals.
Current modern housing systems are poorly designed when considering the behavioral and
adaptive needs of animals. Systems are often simple in design and boring to live in with no
distraction material other than the group mates of the animal. Routine treatments such as tail
docking and beak trimming have to be used to allow animals to survive and produce well in these
systems. This is part of the reason that welfare of farm animals is often so poorly perceived in
public opinion.
Animals like pigs and poultry prefer a rich environment because of their behavioral needs to play
(which is important to develop their social skills) and to root (to find feed).
Several recent developments in animal science and related disciplines show that environmental
enrichment can have significant effects on prevention of maladaptive behavior such as tail biting in
pigs and has stress-reducing effects, improves feed intake, and prevents diarrhea in piglets around
weaning. The enrichment material (e.g., long straw, wood branches, or peat) should be ingestible,
odorous, chewable, deformable, and destructible and should be replenished regularly.
Such enrichment measures result in satisfaction of desires and needs and therefore contribute
to positive welfare. Moreover, the animals also seem more robust when going though transitions
like weaning in piglets, suggesting that improved welfare and improved production go hand in
hand. From a welfare and production point of view, it is therefore important that experts in the field
of behavioral sciences join forces with system designers to design systems that are built based on
behavioral and adaptive needs of animals instead of breeding animals that will fit the current sys-
tems. The latter route will bring us to ethical discussion on whether animals’ intrinsic values may
be changed to fit our current systems. In addition, systems built on behavioral and adaptive needs of
animals must be realistic, ecologically sound, and economically viable to be successful.
Implementation of welfare in practice has become an interdisciplinary challenge where animal
scientists, system designers, ecologists, and economists must join forces. Is it realistic to think that
such systems will get a place in a world where low-cost prices for meat are so important? The public
concern about animal welfare is increasing and retailers and governments are well aware of this.
In Western Europe, cage housing for layer hens soon will be forbidden by law and retailers demand
pregnant sows to be non-tethered. A recently developed welfare-friendly system for laying hens
was supported by welfare organizations, and eggs from this system are sold by retailers. Animal
products from those new systems, which are perceived better by the public, may get a bigger share
of the market, thereby helping the producers of those products. Therefore, we think that the time is
here to meet the challenges by research using a multidisciplinary approach. This multidisciplinary
approach should also have a place in our teaching of undergraduate and graduate courses at univer-
sities and in training of students at other schools. First, students must gain knowledge of different
aspects of animal welfare, and then integrate this knowledge using system design and analyses.

Bas Kemp, PhD, and Martin Verstegen, PhD

Department of Animal Science
Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands
x Forewords

COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS
Scientists studying animal behavior, pain perception, and other issues relevant to animal welfare
provide information that can be used to determine the effects of different production systems and
practices on animal welfare. Science provides information that can be used to make ethical deci-
sions, but it cannot provide all the answers. For example, a scientific experiment can provide data
indicating that a certain procedure causes pain, but it cannot provide an ethical judgment on how
much pain is acceptable. Furthermore, there may be differences of opinion on what is ethical. This
is one of the reasons there are so many different animal agricultural practices all over the world.
Economics is also a big factor. Practices detrimental to animal welfare may be used to lower costs.
For example, the productivity of each individual laying hen is decreased when too many hens are
jammed into a small cage. However, the overall cost for the eggs may be lower because fewer expen-
sive buildings are required. The individual hen may suffer in the process of lowering the cost of
eggs. Some of the main factors that compromise animal welfare include the following:

INADEQUATE MANAGEmENT AND LACK OF EmPlOYEE SUPERVisiON

Some of the worst abusive treatment of animals occurs when overworked, poorly supervised employees
commit acts of abuse and cruelty. Some examples are beating animals, dragging a crippled animal,
throwing small animals, or jabbing them with sharp objects. Abusive practices can occur on both large
and small farms. Many people assume that big farms have more abuse problems, but size is not a deter-
mining factor. The most effective way to prevent abuse is through good management.

NEGlECT
Starvation or inadequate diets are examples of neglect. Allowing manure to build up in an animal’s stall
until the animal is covered in filth is also neglect. Neglect can happen on both large and small farms.

ANimAl BEHAViORAl PREFERENCEs iN INTENsiVE SYsTEms VERsUs EXTENsiVE SYsTEms

Almost everyone who cares about animal welfare can agree that deliberate abuse of animals and
neglect are very detrimental to animal welfare. However, there is a much greater controversy and
disagreement on an animal’s behavioral needs. Scientists can measure, in an objective manner,
an animal’s motivation for an environmental enrichment such as straw for pigs to chew on or a
secluded nest box for a laying hen. Research shows very clearly that animals prefer specific ameni-
ties. Therefore, to provide an acceptable level of animal welfare in an intensive animal production
system, environmental enrichments are needed to satisfy what the animals “want” most.
Examples of extensive systems of animal production are grass-fed beef and free-range chickens.
Producers in this extensive segment will sell to high-end markets of affluent, concerned consumers.
Intensive segments of animal production will remain large-scale commercial producers who will
sell animal products at more affordable prices. This sector will need to eliminate some of the most
objectionable practices such as sow gestation stalls and small, cramped chicken cages. To provide
affordable animal products, these systems will have to be intensive, but must also provide for the
most highly motivated behavioral needs. One example that is already being implemented is colony
housing for hens that provides nest boxes, perches, and a place to scratch.

BiOlOGiCAl SYsTEm OVERlOAD

I predict that biological system overload will become one of the most serious animal welfare prob-
lems in the future. Animals have been pushed to produce more and more milk, meat, or eggs, and
problems with lameness and weakness have already increased since the 1980s and may get worse.
Forewords xi

Lameness in dairy cows has greatly increased and some pigs with heavy muscles are too weak to
walk through the stockyard at a meat plant. There is a point where animal productivity should no
longer be increased because the animal has difficulty functioning. Managers should strive for opti-
mal productivity rather than maximum productivity. A dairy cow that lasts for three or four years
of milking would probably be a good tradeoff between productivity, cost, and welfare compared to
a cow that lasts for only two years of milking.

ECONOmiC FACTORs
Economic pressures can cause producers to cut corners and compromise animal welfare, but
economic factors can also be forces to improve animal welfare. The treatment of animals at
slaughter plants greatly improved after McDonald’s Corporation and other restaurant compa-
nies started auditing slaughter plants. Large buyers are in a position to drive positive change.
Handling and transport practices will improve when people are held financially accountable
for death losses and injuries. When I worked with the restaurant companies to implement ani-
mal welfare audits, I saw huge improvements. Large buyers have the economic clout to enforce
standards. This is why I spend large portions of my time working with large buyers of animal
products to develop standards and conduct audits. The need for grocery stores and restaurants
to audit animal welfare is equally important for both conventional agriculture and the organic/
natural sectors.

MEAsURiNG WElFARE Is EssENTiAl

People are able to manage the things that they can measure. To maintain high standards, manag-
ers need to measure welfare indicators such as the percentage of lame animals, skinny animals,
animals with sores, animals with abnormal behavior, or dirty animals. In organic operations, coat
condition should also be evaluated because lice treatments are often not used and bald spots on
untreated cattle are not acceptable. Measuring is essential to prevent “bad from becoming normal.”
If a producer gets used to seeing a high percentage of lame cows, he or she may start to think that is
normal. Animal handling should also be measured to prevent handling practices from reverting to
being rough and inappropriate. Variables such as the percentage of immobile animals falling down
or the percentage of those vocalizing during handling can be measured. Measurement enables a
producer to determine if welfare is getting better or getting worse. Productivity is routinely mea-
sured. Welfare indicators should also be measured.

Temple Grandin, PhD

Department of Animal Science
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
Grandin Livestock Handling Systems, Inc.
Preface
Animal welfare is a topic of great interest and importance to society. Animals are used for
companionship, service, research, food, fiber, and by-products. Ongoing efforts to ensure the
well-being and comfort of food animals are imperative for fulfillment of sustainable agricul-
ture. Animal source foods provide important nutrients in the diets of humans and animals. A
major challenge for society is the maintenance of a stable environment to support human and
animal needs. Our intent is to link the societal challenge of sustaining animal and human wel-
fare with a strong and viable food system ensured by stewardship of land, crops, animals, and
natural resources.
The book is presented in three parts: Section 1: Roles of Animals in Society, Chapters 1–3;
Section 2: Treatment of Animals and Societal Concerns, Chapters 4–8; and Section 3: Sustainable
Plant and Animal Agriculture for Animal Welfare, Chapters 9–14. The Forewords, written by indi-
viduals representing academia and industry, underscore the need for the animal welfare discussion
in this textbook. Increases in food production have occurred because of scientific, technological, and
global marketing advances. New knowledge in soil, water, crop, and animal science has increased
concurrently with advances in transportation and communication. This industrialization of agricul-
ture has created urban societies in which the vast majority have little awareness and understanding
of agriculture and food production. For example, during the 1950s, approximately 20% of the U.S.
workforce was in farming; in 2011, the figure is approximately 1%.
A major challenge for society in the coming decades is to provide sufficient global food to meet
the needs of an increasing human population. Demand for animal source foods is growing, espe-
cially in developing countries, to counter widespread malnutrition that continues to be a major insult
to infants and children.
During the past 40 years, economics improved and per capita consumption of milk, meat, and
eggs in developing countries has increased. In contrast, during the same period in the developed
countries, average per capita animal source food consumption has declined slightly.
The care and welfare of all animals is a high priority for society. A prominent milestone in this
movement began with the exposure a century ago of questionable practices used in animal slaughter
plants. Progress in animal welfare reforms and oversight is an ongoing effort by those engaged in
food animal production and laboratory animal care.
Concurrent with these ongoing efforts in animal welfare reform, several small but well-funded
organizations are active in promoting efforts to curtail or eradicate food animal production and
the use of laboratory animals in biomedical research. Such efforts may affect animal source food
production and the use of animals in biomedical and agricultural research. Consequently, the nutri-
tional and physiological well-being of infants, children, and other vulnerable humans is at risk,
particularly in developing countries. However, it is important to distinguish between abolitionists,
who accept no legitimate animal use, and those who seek to improve the treatment and well-being
of food animals as well as animals used in biomedical and agricultural research.
This book is intended to provide a framework for open discussions related to those issues that
embrace the concepts of nutrition, animal welfare, and freedom of food choices. Chapter authors
are highly qualified and recognized experts in their respective fields of teaching, research, and
public service. The book is primarily written for undergraduate college students in varying fields
of study: animal sciences, animal behavior, animal welfare, plant sciences, environmental sus-
tainability, sociology, economics, and nutrition. The subject of animal welfare reaches across
society in general, both urban and rural, and has a significant impact on consumer attitudes and
choices.

xiii
xiv Preface

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The editors are grateful to many people for their efforts, individually and collectively, in producing
this textbook. We are indebted to John Sulzycki and Jill Jurgensen of Taylor & Francis/CRC Press
for their support, chapter authors for their leadership and team spirit in approaching a complex book
structure requiring cooperation and collaboration among 40 authors across academic disciplines,
interests, and perspectives, and Marsha Pond for her dedicated editorial assistance.
Contributor List
Aaron Alejandro, BS J. S. Caton, PhD
Texas FFA Foundation North Dakota State University
Austin, Texas Fargo, North Dakota

Kenneth Anderson, PhD Terry Engle, PhD

North Carolina State University Colorado State University
Raleigh, North Carolina Fort Collins, Colorado

David Andrews, JD David Fraser, CM, PhD

Food & Water Watch University of British Columbia
Washington, DC Vancouver, Canada
Charles Arnot, APR
CMA Consulting and the Center for Food Ted H. Friend, PhD
Integrity Texas A&M University
Kansas City, Missouri College Station, Texas

Joseph L. Baumert, PhD Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM, MACVSc

University of Nebraska (Animal Welfare)
Lincoln, Nebraska Director, Animal Welfare Division
American Veterinary Medical Association
Fuller W. Bazer, PhD Shaumberg, Illinois
Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas Temple Grandin, PhD
and Grandin Livestock Handling Systems, Inc.
Seoul National University Colorado State University
Seoul, Republic of Korea Fort Collins, Colorado

Christopher Boleman, PhD Christa Hanson, PhD

Texas 4-H and Youth Development Iowa State University Extension
Texas AgriLife Extension Service Des Moines, Iowa
College Station, Texas
Bas Kemp, PhD
Donald M. Broom, PhD
Wageningen University
University of Cambridge
Wageningen, The Netherlands
Cambridge, UK

Judith L. Capper, PhD Frederick Kirschenmann, PhD

Washington State University Iowa State University
Pullman, Washington Ames, Iowa

Cherie Carrabba, BS Duane C. Kraemer, DVM, PhD

Texas Junior Livestock Association Texas A & M University
Crockett, Texas College Station, Texas

xv
xvi Contributor List

Gregory Lardy, PhD Bernard E. Rollin, PhD

North Dakota State University Colorado State University
Fargo, North Dakota Fort Collins, Colorado

Robert P. Martin Paul Shapiro

Pew Environment Group Humane Society of the United States
Washington, DC Washington, DC

John N. Sofos, PhD

John J. McGlone, PhD
Colorado State University
Texas Tech University
Fort Collins, Colorado
Lubbock, Texas
Jarret D. Stopforth, PhD
Alan McHughen, DPhil Purac America, Inc.
University of California Lincolnshire, Illinois
Riverside, California
Steve L. Taylor, PhD
Christian E. Newcomer, VMD University of Nebraska
Association for Assessment of Accreditation of Lincoln, Nebraska
Laboratory Animal Care International
Frederick, Maryland Paul B. Thompson, PhD
Michigan State University
Elizabeth Oltenacu, PhD East Lansing, Michigan
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York Duane Ullrey, PhD
Michigan State University
Fred Owens, PhD East Lansing, Michigan
Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, a DuPont Business
Johnston, Iowa Vincent Varel, PhD
USDA, ARS, U.S. Meat Animal
R. Anne Pearson, PhD Research Center
University of Edinburgh Clay Center, Nebraska
Roslin Midlothian, UK
Martin Verstegen, PhD
Kevin R. Pond, PhD Wagenigen University
Texas Tech University Wageningen, The Netherlands
Lubbock, Texas
James Wells, PhD
Wilson G. Pond, PhD USDA, ARS, U.S. Meat Animal
Cornell University Research Center
Ithaca, New York Clay Center, Nebraska
Section I
Roles of Animals in Society
 1 Perspectives on Emergence
of Contemporary Animal
Agriculture in the
­Mid-twentieth Century
The Decline of Husbandry and
the Rise of the Industrial Model
Bernard E. Rollin and Paul B. Thompson

CONTENTS
The Egg Industry................................................................................................................................. 9
The Dairy Industry............................................................................................................................ 10
The Swine Industry........................................................................................................................... 10
References......................................................................................................................................... 12

The domestication of animals occurred some 10,000 years ago and represented a milestone for the
history of human civilization. The origin and sequence of domestication is a hotly debated topic
among anthropologists and historians. Richard Bulliet (2005) argues that animals were probably
first kept in captivity for use in sacrificial rites. This practice allowed ancient civilizations to observe
which species were tame enough for use as work animals. Animals, notably cattle, provided labor
and locomotion when they were harnessed to plows, sledges, and wagons beginning in about 4000
BC. Thus, animal agriculture was indispensable to accelerating the development of crop agriculture.
The flesh and hides of sacrificial animals were routinely consumed by those in the royal house or the
priesthood. Eventually, the habit of having the animals under human control at all times provided a
constant and consistent food supply ready at hand. It also thereby created the leisure time necessary
to societal progress.
However domestication actually occurred, humans selected among animals congenial to human
management, and further shaped them in terms of temperament and production traits by breeding
and artificial selection. These animals included cattle—dubbed by Calvin Schwabe the “mother of
the human race”—sheep, goats, horses, dogs, poultry and other birds, swine, ungulates, and other
animals capable of domestication. The animals provided food and fiber (meat, milk, wool, and
leather); power to haul and plow; transportation; and served as weaponry (horses and elephants).
As people grew more effective at breeding and managing the animals, productivity increased. As
humans benefited, so arguably did the animals. They were provided with the necessities of life in a
predictable way. Thus was born the concept of husbandry—the remarkable practice and articulation
of the symbiotic contract humans made with farm animals.
“Husbandry” is derived from the Old Norse words “hus” and “bond”; the animals were bonded
to one’s household. The essence of husbandry was care. Humans put animals into the most ideal

3
4 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

environment possible for the animals to survive and thrive, the environment for which they had
evolved and been selected. In addition, humans provided them with sustenance, water, shelter, pro-
tection from predation, medical attention (as was available), help in birthing, food during famine,
water during drought, safe surroundings, and comfortable appointments. Eventually, what was born
of necessity and common sense became articulated in terms of a moral obligation inextricably bound
up with self-interest. In the biblical story of Noah, we learn that even as God preserves humans,
humans preserve animals. The ethic of husbandry is, in fact, taught throughout the Bible—animals
must rest on the Sabbath even as we do; one is not to seethe a calf in its mother’s milk (so we do not
grow insensitive to animals needs and natures); and we can violate the Sabbath to save an animal.
Proverbs tells us “the wise man cares for his animals.” The Old Testament is replete with injunctions
against inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on animals, as exemplified in the strange story of
Balaam who beats his ass, and is reprimanded by the animal’s speaking through the grace of God.
The true power of the husbandry ethic is best expressed in the 23rd Psalm. There, in searching for
an apt metaphor for God’s ideal relationship to humans, the Psalmist invokes the good shepherd:

The Lord is My shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
He leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul.

We want no more from God than what the good shepherd provides to his animals. Indeed,
c­ onsider a lamb in ancient Judaea. Without a shepherd, the animal would not easily find forage
or water, would not survive the multitude of predators the Bible tells us prowled the land—lions,
jackals, hyenas, birds of prey, and wild dogs. Under the aegis of the shepherd, the lamb lives well
and safely. In return, the animals provide their products and sometimes their lives, but while they
live, they live well. Even slaughter, the taking of the animal’s life, must be as painless as possible,
performed with a sharp knife by a trained person to avoid unnecessary pain. Ritual slaughter was, in
antiquity, a far kinder death than bludgeoning; most importantly, it was the most humane modality
available at the time (despite its questionable status today).
The metaphor of the good shepherd is emblazoned in the Western mind. Jesus is depicted as
both shepherd and lamb from the origin of Christianity until the present in paintings, literature,
song, statuary, and poetry as well as in sermons. To this day, ministers are called shepherds of their
congregation, and the word “pastor” is derived from “pastoral.” In addition, when Plato discusses
the ideal political ruler in the Republic, he deploys the shepherd–sheep metaphor: The ruler is to
his people as the shepherd is to his flock. Qua shepherd, the shepherd exists to protect, preserve,
and improve the sheep; any payment tendered to him is in his capacity as wage earner. So too the
ruler again illustrates the power of the concept of husbandry on our psyches. Because of its close
connection to God’s putative relation to humans, husbandry has traditionally been a favored topic
for sermons and homilies in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The concept of husbandry was regularly
emphasized in the education of the young, both as a foundation for agriculture and as an exemplary
value to reflect upon. Viewed from the perspective of agricultural ethics, the singular beauty of
husbandry is that it was both an ethical and prudential doctrine. It was prudential in that failure
to observe husbandry inexorably led to ruination of the person keeping animals. Not feeding, not
watering, not protecting from predators, not respecting the animals’ physical, biological, and physi-
ological needs and natures, what Aristotle called their telos—the “cowness of the cow,” the “sheep-
ness of the sheep”—meant your animals did not survive and thrive, and thus neither did you. Failure
to know and respect the animal’s needs and natures had the same effect. Indeed, even Aristotle,
whose worldview was fully hierarchical with humans at the top, implicitly recognized the contrac-
tual nature of husbandry when he off-handedly affirmed that although the natural role of animals is
to serve man, domestic animals are “preserved” through so doing. The ultimate sanction of failing
at husbandry—erosion of self-interest—obviated the need for any detailed ethical exposition of
Perspectives on Emergence of Contemporary Animal Agriculture 5

moral rules for husbandry. Anyone unmoved by self-interest is unlikely to be moved by moral or
legal injunctions! Yet although one finds little written about animal ethics and little codification of
that ethic in law before the twentieth century, there is no reason to suppose that husbandry was not
also conceived in ethical terms. Indeed, the religious tradition discussed previously suggests just
the opposite. If the shepherd did not tend his flock from a perspective of ethical compassion (along
with self-interest), how could the metaphor of God as “my shepherd” have attained the resonance
and meaning that it evidently has?
Given the overlap between ethics and self-interest in traditional husbandry, the bulk of what was
articulated in animal ethics aimed at identifying overt, deliberate, sadistic cruelty, hurting an ani-
mal for no purpose or for perverse pleasure, or not providing food or water. The biblical prohibition
against animal cruelty was continued and augmented in the rabbinical tradition as Tsaar Baalei
Chaim—the suffering of living things. The prohibition against yoking an ox and an ass to the same
plow arises out of concern of stress on the weaker animal. At the same time, of course, the Bible is
replete with commandments that encourage good husbandry. Concern for cruelty to animals arises
in the Catholic tradition in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Despite the fact that animals enjoy
no moral status in Catholic theology, Aquinas strictly forbids cruelty on the grounds (buttressed by
modern psychology) that cruelty to animals leads inexorably to cruelty to humans.
Despite the sound and Solomonic basis for husbandry and its long history, this simple ethic was
dealt a serious blow in the twentieth century. It is essential to stress that the widespread loss of hus-
bandry among some producers was not the result of malice or thoughtlessness. It occurred through
the eventual maturation of change processes that had long been at work in agricultural systems
of European origin, ushered along by a series of technological innovations that were themselves
accelerated in the years following World War II. By the closing decades of the twentieth century in
some environments, these change processes had supplanted the ideas that had supported a relatively
benign on-farm relationship between livestock and their human caregivers over the preceding cen-
turies. By 1980, the philosophical vision of farming that held sway throughout the United States
and other nations of European settlement had been swept away by a new understanding. In this new
way of seeing things, agriculture is just another sector in the industrial economy. Like the energy
or manufacturing sectors, the role of agriculture is to bring forth commodities for consumption in
the marketplace, and to do so at the least possible cost. These changes were not brought about by
a lack of concern for animals. The forces that created this philosophical revolution in the way that
scientists, policymakers, and opinion leaders thought of agriculture are not uniquely or even primar-
ily focused on the livestock sector.
Industrial agriculture is the inevitable result of unconstrained technological innovation on the one
hand, combined with a singular neglect of the food system’s unique contributions to quality of life on
the other. The technology piece of the change process gave us industrial agriculture as a simple result
of agricultural economics. Farm productivity is the ratio of farm output over input. Inputs include
land, labor, and purchased goods such as seed, feed, fertilizer, and equipment. Outputs include sal-
able farm products: in the animal sector, meat, milk, eggs, and animal by-products such as hides. A
change in technology increases productivity when the new tools or techniques being used increase
the outputs in the form of salable products while keeping the inputs in the form of land, labor, and
other purchased goods constant. For an individual farm, an increase in productivity means that the
farmer has more to sell. This is a good thing for the farmer as long as the price received for those
commodity goods stays the same. With more to sell, the farmer has more income. The hitch is that as
the new technology is widely adopted by other farmers, the entire farm sector has more to sell, and
this creates a problem in agriculture that fuels the process of industrialization.
According to Economics 101, when supply goes up, prices must come down. Thus, as farm
productivity grows, the total supply of farm commodities grows with it and prices fall. Eventually
the farmer is back where he started. The ultimate benefit of an increase in productivity is passed
on to consumers, who enjoy lower prices for food. However, something important has gone on
in the meantime. Those farmers that adopted the new tools and techniques early made windfall
6 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

profits before­prices fell, while farmers who were late to adopt them were stuck with the problem of
having to sell their meat, milk, and eggs for less than it cost to produce them. This, as any student
of economics knows, leads to bankruptcy. When the bankrupt farms go up for auction, the early
adopters are sitting there with windfall profits in their pockets, anxious to buy up the bankrupt
farms. Agricultural economists call this the “technology treadmill.” An individual farmer is run-
ning harder (producing more) to stay in the same place (maintain the same income). At the same
time, less productive (and usually smaller) producers are constantly going bankrupt and leaving
farming, while the ones still on the treadmill are getting bigger and bigger. When still newer tools
and techniques come along, this process repeats itself all over again.
There are several ethical points to learn from the technology treadmill. The first point is that no
farmer can afford not to adopt the most productive, state-of-the-art tools and techniques, and the
smart ones are always the first to do so. If other farmers are producing for less, market prices will
eventually adjust to reflect that fact, and the “laggard” (this is actually the term that rural sociolo-
gists once used to describe late adopters) will be forced to go out of business. From the individual
farmer’s perspective, there is no ethical choice to be made. Either you use the most productive
technology or you are not a farmer at all. There is no point in trying to blame producers for this as a
matter of ethics. They literally have no choice. The second point is if this were all that there was to
say about the economics of farming, then there would be strong ethical arguments for thinking that
the technology treadmill is a good thing. It is obviously not a good thing for the smaller, less pro-
ductive farmers who are losing their farms, but it is important to remember that the cost of food is
constantly coming down with every turn of the treadmill. This decline in the cost of food is a good
thing for people who buy food. It is an especially good thing for people who spend a comparatively
large portion of their income on food (i.e., the poor). Several generations of agricultural economists
and policymakers were so impressed by this logic during the twentieth century that urging farmers
to “get big or get out” was official U.S. government policy (Thompson, 2010).
However, there is more to the story.
Between the two World Wars, agricultural scientists and government officials became extremely
concerned about supplying the U.S. public with enough cheap and plentiful food. First, after the Dust
Bowl and the Great Depression, many people in agriculture had soured on farming. Agriculture was
always subject to the vagaries of weather and economics, but never in U.S. history to the staggering
extremes experienced in the unpredictable and incomprehensible events over which the individual
was powerless. Second, reasonable predictions of urban and suburban encroachment on agricultural
land were being made, with a resultant loss of land for food production. This tendency has in fact
continued through the present. Today, rural property that was formerly used for dryland farming
of winter wheat now can sell for $60,000 per acre for development use. Moreover, as farmland is
developed into housing, homeowners do not wish to live next to animal production units that create
odor and dust. Third, many farm people had been sent to both foreign and domestic urban centers as
military personnel during both World Wars, thereby creating in them a reluctance to return to rural
areas lacking in excitement and amenities. This problem is well illustrated by the post-World War I
song, “How ’Ya Gonna Keep ’Em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree)?” Fourth, having
experienced the specter of literal starvation during the Great Depression, the American consumer
was, for the first time in our history, fearful of an insufficient food supply. Fifth, projection of major
population increases (that in fact happened) further fueled concern. Sixth, promises of better jobs in
cities, for example in the automotive industry in Detroit, lured farm workers out of agricultural areas
into urban areas by the promise of higher income than could be made on farms.
When the considerations of loss of land and diminution of agricultural labor are coupled with
the rapid development of a variety of technological modalities relevant to agriculture during and
after World War II and with the burgeoning belief in technologically based economics of scale, it
was probably inevitable that animal agriculture would become subject to industrialization. This was
a major departure from traditional agriculture and a fundamental change in agricultural core val-
ues—industrial values of efficiency and productivity replaced and eclipsed the traditional values of
Perspectives on Emergence of Contemporary Animal Agriculture 7

“way of life” and husbandry. Husbandry-based animal agriculture was about putting square pegs in
square holes, round pegs in round holes, and creating as little friction as possible doing so. Animal
welfare was linked conceptually to productivity—harming the animal’s welfare diminished its pro-
ductivity. To be sure, people did not always pursue their own interest and could be sloppy or abrasive
in animal care despite the concomitant loss of productivity. However, the key point was that the two
were closely tied together. As industrial agriculture began to take hold, academic departments of
animal husbandry changed their names to departments of animal science, symbolically betokening
a move to industry. Animal science, in fact, is defined in textbooks as the application of industrial
methods to the production of animals. No husbandry person would ever dream of keeping animals
evolved for extensive grazing confined in small cages. No husbandry person would ever dream of
feeding blood and bone meal, poultry waste, or cement dust to farm animals, but such “innovations”
are entailed by industrial/efficiency mindset and applied research.
With the industrialization of agriculture, people no longer needed to put square pegs in square
holes, round pegs in round holes, but by using “technological sanders,” could force square pegs
into round holes and round pegs into square holes. In other words, animals could be placed into
environments and housing systems that violated their biological and psychological natures without
harming their productivity. Antibiotics, vaccines, bacterins, hormones, air-handling systems, and
other technological innovations allowed us to put animals where their needs and natures were not
met, where suffering in fact occurred. In a traditional husbandry system, these practices could have
reduced farm productivity, but in the industrial system, they increased farm productivity from the
economic standpoint. Using technology, productivity was severed from animal welfare. For exam-
ple, the economically most efficient way to produce eggs maximizes the number of eggs produced
per barn, rather than per bird. A modern poultry barn costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, while
a chicken costs only a few cents. Stocking densities that maximize productivity sacrifice animal
health in order to get the best return on the total investment.* Whereas, in husbandry agriculture,
productivity and animal welfare went hand-in-hand, they were disconnected under an industrial
approach, with animals suffering, but in ways irrelevant to productivity. However, small husbandry
farms, operating on smaller profit margins, still exist today in the United States and worldwide.
By the last quarter of the twentieth century, a significant portion of animal agriculture had been
channeled into industrialized confinement in the United States, Europe, Latin America, and Asia.
Machines replaced human skilled labor, and industrialized agriculturalists boasted that agricultural
intelligence was in the systems, not in husbandry-trained workers. Husbandry was often supplanted
by industry in many areas of animal agriculture except for extensive sheep and cattle ranching. In
these cases, not only was animal welfare adversely affected, but also new problems for agriculture
arose. One issue was sustainability: in extensive cattle ranching, environmental sustainability was
assured because if a cattle rancher overgrazed his pasture land, he essentially lost his livelihood.
Industrial agriculture, on the other hand, did not represent a self-sustaining balanced equilibrium. A
detailed account of the problems created by the industrialization of animal agriculture is presented
in Chapter 4, but they are worth a brief summary here.

1. Environmental—Inexpensive fossil fuels are one of the main drivers for industrialization
in all of agriculture, including animal production. Furthermore, such operations generate
enormous amounts of manure. Unlike the valuable role of manure in pastoral agriculture,
where it nourishes the soil, in confinement manure becomes a potential pollutant. Excess
manure leaches into ground water and pours into surface water under conditions of high
rain, as famously occurred in North Carolina. The wastes in turn produce significant odor,
and eutrophication of streams, rivers, and lakes, that is, growth of undesirable algae and
bacteria. In the central valley of California between San Francisco and Los Angeles, many

* In 2000, the Producer Committee for the United Egg Producers acknowledged this, increasing recommended space
allocations from an industry average of 48 sq. in. per bird to 72 sq. in. per bird.
8 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

giant dairies have generated unprecedented air pollution consisting of organic volatile
compounds, nitrous oxide, ammonia, and methane, eliciting unprecedented environmental
regulations. Industrial operations also consume vast amounts of precious water.
2. Human health issues—Closely connected to environmental contamination are human
health issues. Two-thirds of human infectious diseases are zoonotic, and close confine-
ment allows infectious microorganisms to burn through populations, much like a cold
in a dormitory. In addition, crowded conditions may be conducive to rapid mutation and
development of new pathogens. When antibiotics or other drugs are used as a technological
sander to compensate for unhealthy conditions or as a growth promotant at low levels, sur-
face water from runoff of industrial animal production facilities can become polluted with
pharmaceuticals. Many scientists believe that feeding antibiotics to livestock for growth
promotion encourages resistance to antibiotic agents in important human pathogens and
thus an end to such use of antibiotics in agriculture should be legislated. Others (De Haven,
2010) deny this claim. Worker health may also become a problem, both because of patho-
gens and because of bad air. In some swine barns, workers must wear respirators, although
the animals do not! The air pollution mentioned earlier in the central valley of California
is responsible for marked increased incidence of respiratory disease, cardiovascular prob-
lems, and pre-natal and neonatal health problems, as California health authorities told the
Pew Commission on which one of us (BR) served.
3. Loss of small agriculture and destruction of rural communities—As mentioned, in some 26
years the United States had lost 87.8% of the swine producers operating in 1980 (Vansickle,
2002) with the hogs now produced by large companies. From over one million producers
in the 1960s, by 2005 the number had fallen to 67,000 (USDA/NASS, 2005). As the small
hog farmers have gone out of business, the once thriving communities they nurtured have
become ghost towns. This in turn kills the communities. Moreover, in rural areas where
large operators have become established, major cultural conflicts occur between traditional
inhabitants and the migratory workers. In the face of these considerations, we must again
recall Jefferson’s admonition that small farms and farmers are the backbone of democracy;
no one wishes to see major corporations monopolizing the food supply.
4. “Externalized costs”—What helped drive industrialized agriculture’s evolution is the
desire for “cheap food.” Americans spend only 9% of their income on food, as opposed
to the 20% spent by Europeans. However, it should be clear from our discussion that what
one pays in the supermarket does not represent the true cost of animal products created by
industrial methods. The Pew Commission was told by California state health officials that
human health costs (in addition to the suffering associated with illness), for example, from
pollution from dairies in the central valley of California cost every man, woman, and child
in that area an estimated $3 billion, or $1000 per year in direct medical costs. The costs
of environmental pollution and the cleanup it will eventually require are inestimable, and
how does one cost-account the animals’ suffering?

It has often been asked if those who developed industrial animal production methods were callous
or oblivious to animal welfare. Most certainly not! They are, however, guilty of a major conceptual
error. Since most of the developers come from experience and training in husbandry agriculture,
they may have assumed that the same logic that governed husbandry would remain in industrial
systems. That is, they thought that the new agriculture would preserve the close connection between
productivity and animal welfare that one found in traditional agriculture. Hence, as we shall see
in Chapter 5, industrial agriculturalists were disposed to treat productivity as definitive of welfare,
forgetting the role of what we have called “technological sanders” in preserving productivity even
while welfare is severely compromised.
Industrial agriculture created major welfare problems for farm animals that did not arise, or were
insignificant, under husbandry agriculture.
Perspectives on Emergence of Contemporary Animal Agriculture 9

In general, all animals in confinement agriculture (with the exception of beef cattle who live
most of their lives on pasture, and are “finished” on grain in dirt feed lots, where they can actualize
much of their nature) suffer from the same generic set of affronts to their welfare absent in hus-
bandry agriculture.

1. Production diseases—By definition, a production disease is a disease that would not exist
or would not be of serious epidemic import were it not for the method of production.
Examples are liver and rumenal abscesses resulting from feeding cattle too much grain,
rather than roughage. The animals that get sick are more than balanced out economically
by the remaining animals’ weight gain. Other examples are confinement-induced envi-
ronmental mastitis in dairy cattle and “shipping fever.” There are textbooks of production
diseases, and well over 90% of what farm animal veterinarians treat is production diseases
(Rollin, 2009).
2. Loss of workers who are “animal smart”—In large industrial operations such as swine
factories, the workers are minimum wage, sometimes illegal, often migratory, with little
animal knowledge. Confinement agriculturalists will boast that “the intelligence is in the
system” and thus the historically collective wisdom of husbandry is lost, as is the concept
of the historical shepherd, now transmuted into rote, cheap labor.
3. Lack of individual attention—Under husbandry systems, each animal is valuable. In inten-
sive swine operations, the individuals are worth little. When this is coupled with the fact
that workers are no longer caretakers, the result is obvious.
4. The lack of attention to animal needs determined by their physiological and psychological
natures—As mentioned earlier, “technological sanders” allow us to keep animals under
conditions violative of their natures, thus severing productivity from assured well being.

THE EGG INDUSTRY

Let us briefly examine some representative industrial systems to understand in specific terms the
problems of animal welfare generated by industrialization of animal agriculture. Consider, for
example, the egg industry, one of the first areas of agriculture to experience industrialization. On
a typical nineteenth-century American farm, chickens ran free in barnyards, able to express their
natural behaviors of moving freely, nest-building, dust-bathing, escaping from more aggressive ani-
mals, defecating away from their nests and, in general, fulfilling their natures as chickens. They
fed on a combination of natural forage and waste products (table scraps, generally) from the farm
household. Chickens were typically kept near the house and tended by women and children, who
were not paid for their labor. “Egg money” is a phrase that refers to the income that a household
would make by selling a few excess eggs off the farm. During this era, eggs were typically avail-
able only seasonally, as these free-ranging hens would turn their energies elsewhere as spring gave
way to summer. This farmstead practice was first supplemented and then eventually often displaced
by operations in which hundreds and eventually thousands of egg-laying hens were kept on litter
in low buildings. Eggs were still gathered by hand, although now increasingly by low-wage work-
ers, who also distributed milled feeds, collected dead birds, and were responsible for hygiene. The
key technologies in this transition were in breeding, on the one hand, as the genetically diverse but
broody flocks of yesteryear were displaced by leghorns that would lay eggs constantly, and electric
lights, on the other, which regularized light cycles and broke the seasonal nature of egg production.
Although still free ranging, birds in these systems were also beak trimmed to minimize cannibal-
ism (Friedberg, 2008). This middle system, already well in place by the 1930s, was supplanted by
the caged layer systems of the 1960s and 1970s in which hens were kept on wire and methods of
egg collection and manure removal were completely automated. In its most economically efficient
configuration, hens were stocked so densely in small cages so that some must stand on others. The
trade association for the shell egg industry (i.e., eggs sold in shells) no longer recommends these
10 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

stocking densities, although many producers who sell liquefied eggs to the food industry, as well
as a minority of shell egg producers, still use them. Putting chickens in cages and putting the cages
in environmentally controlled buildings requires large amounts of capital, energy, and technologi-
cal “fixes.” For example, it is necessary to run exhaust fans to prevent lethal build-up of ammonia.
The value of each chicken is negligible so more chickens are needed; chickens are cheap, cages
are expensive so as many chickens as is physically possible are crowded into cages. The vast con-
centration of chickens requires antibiotics, vaccines, and other drugs to prevent wildfire spread of
disease in crowded conditions. Breeding of animals is oriented solely toward productivity; genetic
diversity—a safety net allowing response to unforeseen change— is lost.

THE DAIRY INDUSTRY

Consider another example, the dairy industry, once viewed as the paradigm case of bucolic, sustain-
able animal agriculture, with grazing animals giving milk and fertilizing the soil with their manure
for continued pasture. Although the industry wishes consumers to believe that this situation still
exists—the California dairy industry ran advertisements proclaiming that California cheese comes
from “happy cows,” showing the cows in pastures—the truth is radically different. The vast major-
ity of California dairy cattle spend their lives on dirt and concrete, and in fact never see a blade of
pasture grass, let alone consume it.
Ubiquitous across contemporary agriculture, animals have been single-mindedly bred for pro-
ductivity—in the case of dairy cattle, for milk production. Today’s dairy cow produces three to four
times more milk than 60 years ago. In 1957, the average dairy cow produced between 500 and 600
pounds of milk per lactation. Fifty years later, it is close to 20,000 pounds (The Colorado Dairy
Industry, 2005; USDA/NASS, 2006). From 1995 to 2004 alone, milk production per cow increased
16%. A high percentage of the U.S. dairy herd is chronically lame (Nordlund, 2004; some estimates
range as high as 30%), and these cows suffer serious reproductive problems. Whereas in traditional
agriculture, a milk cow could remain productive for 10 or even 15 years, today’s cow lasts slightly
longer than two lactations, a result of metabolic burnout and the quest for ever-increasingly pro-
ductive animals, hastened in the United States by the use of bovine somatotropin (BST) to further
increase production. Such unnaturally productive animals naturally suffer from mastitis, and the
industry’s response to mastitis in portions of the United States has created a new welfare problem by
docking of cow tails without anesthesia in a futile effort to minimize teat contamination by manure.
(No husbandry person would so mutilate a cow, leaving her with an open wound and no way to
chase flies.) Still practiced, this procedure has been definitively demonstrated not to be relevant to
mastitis control (see Bagley, 2003). Arguably, the stress and pain of tail amputation coupled with the
concomitant inability to chase away flies may well dispose cows to more mastitis. In a dairy, calves
are removed from mothers shortly after birth, before receiving colostrum, creating significant dis-
tress in both mothers and infants. Bull calves may be shipped to slaughter or a feedlot immediately
after birth, generating stress and fear. (Under husbandry, these animals would have been eaten as
veal or sold locally.)

THE SWINE INDUSTRY

The intensive swine industry, which through a handful of companies is responsible for 85% of the
pork produced in the United States, is also responsible for significant suffering that did not affect
husbandry-reared swine. Certainly the most egregious practice in the confinement swine industry
and possibly, given the intelligence of pigs, in all of animal agriculture is the housing of pregnant
sows in gestation crates or stalls—essentially small cages. The recommended size for such stalls, in
which the sow spends her entire productive life of about four years, with a brief exception we will
detail shortly, according to the industry is 3 feet high ×2 feet wide ×7 feet long—this for an animal
that may weigh 600 pounds or more. (In reality, many stalls are smaller.) The sow cannot stand up,
Perspectives on Emergence of Contemporary Animal Agriculture 11

turn around, walk, or even scratch her rump. In the case of large sows, they cannot even lie flat,
but must remain arched. The exception alluded to is the period of farrowing—approximately three
weeks—when the sow is transferred to a “farrowing crate” to give birth and nurse her piglets. The
space for her is no greater, but there is a “creep rail” surrounding her so the piglets can nurse without
being crushed by her postural adjustments.
Under extensive conditions, a sow will build a nest on a hillside so excrement runs off; forage an
area covering a mile a day; and take turns with other sows watching piglets and allowing all sows
to forage (Rollin, 1995). With the animal’s nature thus aborted, she may exhibit bizarre and deviant
behavior such as compulsively chewing on the bars of the cage, and endure foot and leg problems
and lesions from lying on concrete in her own excrement. Keeping the sow confined is seen as more
efficient, as she uses less feed and less labor is required to manage the animals.
Jim and Pamela Braun (1998), now activists opposing industrial pork production, explain how
such changes seemed entirely rational to them when they were involved in installing a confinement
system on their own farm. Their family-farm system of raising pigs outdoors in a barnyard began
to fail in the late 1960s when they encountered difficulties in managing a porcine disease called
MMA.
The only treatment was a series of shots strategically timed immediately after farrowing. If the
sequence was missed, the piglets died. Even the tamest sows became very leery after receiving the
first shot, and thousands of field-farrowed piglets died.

In order to solve this and other problems in hog production, …[a] concrete pit was built, and concrete
slats were installed to service a 144 foot by 44 foot farrowing house that was totally enclosed. … Each
stall was its own self-contained sow hotel, with an automatic feeder, waterer, and manure removal
system. We farrowed year round and the sows could not run from their shots, thereby helping to ensure
the health and safety of the piglets. By the fall of 1974, six more buildings were added, and all of my
father’s hogs were on slatted floors and under aluminum roofs. … Confinement solved many problems
associated with hog production. The pigs were protected from the elements, which increased their feed
efficiency and their rate of gain. Sow productivity was increased because they could be weaned and
rebred to farrow no matter the season or weather. Also, left on their own outside, hogs develop a social
structure and a pecking order that is rigidly enforced. Only those at the top of the hierarchy thrive.
They receive the larger portions of feed by bullying the smaller and weaker hogs. Stronger and more
dominant pigs mutilate and often kill weaker and smaller pigs. Grouping hogs into smaller, protected
numbers inside helped to reduce the “Boss Hog” syndrome. (Braun and Braun, 1998, pp. 40–41)

They go on to acknowledge weaknesses in these systems (such as antibiotic use), but the main
thrust of their indictment of industrial pig production emphasizes unfair and illegal pricing
structures, unfair credit practices, and state and federal tax credits that corporations (seeking
to integrate pig production) use to put the squeeze on independent producers (Braun and Braun,
1998, p. 50).
Two striking anecdotes tellingly underscore the difference between husbandry agriculture and
its practitioners and industrial agriculture and its practitioners with regard to animal welfare. A few
years ago, we observed some sharply contrasting incidents that dramatically highlight the moral dif-
ference between intensive and extensive agriculture. That particular year, Colorado cattle ranches,
paradigmatic exemplars of husbandry, were afflicted by a significant amount of scours. Over two
months, I (BR) talked to a half dozen rancher friends of mine. Every single one had experienced
trouble with scours, and every one had spent more on treating the disease than was economically
justified by the calves’ monetary value. When these men were asked why they were being what an
economist would term “economically irrational,” they were quite adamant in their response: “It’s
part of my bargain with the animal; part of caring for them,” one of them said. It is, of course, the
same ethical outlook that leads ranch wives to sit up all night with sick marginal calves, sometimes
for days in a row. If the issues were strictly economic, these people would hardly be valuing their
time at 50 cents per hour—including their sleep time!
12 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Now, in contrast to these uplifting moral attitudes, consider the following: One animal science
colleague related that his son-in-law, who was raised on a ranch, was an employee in a large, total
confinement swine operation. As a young man, he had raised and shown pigs, keeping them semi-
extensively. One day he detected a disease among the feeder pigs in the confinement facility where
he works, which would necessitate killing them because this operation did not treat individual
animals, their profit margin being allegedly too low. Out of his long established husbandry ethic, he
came in on his own time with his own medicine to treat the animals. He cured them. Management’s
response was to fire him on the spot for violating company policy! He kept his job and escaped with
a reprimand only when he was able to prove that he had expended his own—not the company’s—
resources. He continued to work for them, but felt that his health had suffered by virtue of what I
(BR) have called the “moral stress” he experienced every day; the stress growing out of the conflict
between what he was told to do and how he morally believed he should be treating the animals.
Eventually, he left agriculture altogether. These contrasting incidents, better than anything else we
know, eloquently illustrate the large gap between the ethics of husbandry and industry.
This chapter has detailed the historical/conceptual basis for recent societal demands regarding
farm animal welfare. Chapter 5 will interpret what form the social demand is currently taking.
Viewpoints and approaches from a multidisciplinary group of educators and scientists are offered.

REFERENCES
Bagley, C.V. 2003. Tail docking of dairy cattle, http://extension.usu.edu/files/dairy/uploads/htms/taildock.htm,
accessed 7/20/2011.
Braun, J. and Braun, P. 1998. Inside the industry from a family hog farmer. In: Pigs, Profits and Rural
Communities, Thu, K. M. and Durrenberger, E. P., Eds. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press,
pp. 39–56.
Bulliet, R. 2005. Hunters, Herders and Hamburgers: The Past and Future of Human-Animal Relationships.
New York: Columbia University Press.
The Colorado Dairy Industry. 2005. Quick Facts Based on 2005 Production, provided by Bill Waites, CSV
animal sciences chair.
De Haven, W.R. 2010. www.FeedstuffsFoodlink.com, March 8, 2010, p. 17.
Friedberg, S.E. 2008. The triumph of the egg. Comparative Studies in Society and History 50:400–423.
Nordlund, K., Cook, N.B., and Octzel, G.R. 2004. Investigation strategies for laminitis problem herds. Journal
of Dairy Science 87 (E Suppl): E27–E35.
Rollin, B. 2009. Veterinary ethics and production diseases. Cambridge Animal Health Research Reviews, 10(2):
125–130.
Rollin, B.E. 1995. Farm Animal Welfare. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Thompson, P.B. 2010. The Agrarian Vision: Sustainability and Environmental Ethics. Lexington, KY: University
of Kentucky Press.
USDA/NASS. 2005.
USDA/NASS. 2006. Milk Production and Milk Cows. http://www.nass.usda.gov/statisticsbystate
Vansickle, J. 2002. Profits slow decline in hog farm numbers, Natural Hog Farmer. http://www.nationalhog-
farmer.com/mag/farming_profits_slow_decline/index.html
 2 Contributions of Farm and
Laboratory Animals to Society
Wilson G. Pond, R. Anne Pearson, Kevin R. Pond,
Christian E. Newcomer, Christopher Boleman,
Aaron Alejandro, and Cherie Carrabba

CONTENTS
Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 14
References......................................................................................................................................... 15
Farm Animals in Draught and Transport.......................................................................................... 15
Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 15
Use of Animals for Work............................................................................................................. 15
Numbers of Animals Used for Work............................................................................................ 16
Skills in Societies Using Animal Power....................................................................................... 16
Production from Working Animals.............................................................................................. 16
Nutrient Requirements of Working Animals................................................................................ 17
Constraints to Performance.......................................................................................................... 17
The Future.................................................................................................................................... 18
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 18
References.................................................................................................................................... 18
Crop and Animal Processing Wastes................................................................................................. 19
Summary......................................................................................................................................20
References....................................................................................................................................20
Animal Fibers, Hides and Pelts, and Leather....................................................................................20
Mammals...................................................................................................................................... 21
Birds............................................................................................................................................. 21
Chickens, Ducks, Geese, and Turkeys..................................................................................... 21
Ostriches.................................................................................................................................. 22
Emus........................................................................................................................................ 22
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 22
References.................................................................................................................................... 22
Use of Animals in Nutritional and Physiological Research.............................................................. 22
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 23
References.................................................................................................................................... 23
Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Products......................................................................................... 23
Historical Highlights of Progress in the Use of Farm Animals in Biosciences........................... 23
Current Advances in the Use of Farm Animals in the Development of Pharmaceutical and
Biomedical Products....................................................................................................................25
Birds........................................................................................................................................25
Mammals.................................................................................................................................25
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 27
References.................................................................................................................................... 27

13
14 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Laws, Regulations, and Oversight Mechanisms for Research Studies with

Agricultural Animals in the United States........................................................................................28
Introduction..................................................................................................................................28
Defining the Regulatory Framework and Guidance Documents................................................. 29
Recent Revision of Existing Guides............................................................................................ 30
Voluntary Participation of Institutions in AAALAC.................................................................... 32
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 32
References.................................................................................................................................... 32
Role of Animal Agriculture in Enrichment of Youth Development through Organized
Hands-On Exposure to High Standards of Animal Welfare in Food Animal Production................. 33
4-H Clubs and FFA Chapters....................................................................................................... 33
The Growth of Livestock Projects................................................................................................34
Studies Specific to Youth Livestock Projects...............................................................................34
The Role of 4-H and FFA Youth in Enhancing Welfare of Animal Agriculture and
Companion Animals..................................................................................................................... 35
Summary and Conclusions........................................................................................................... 35
References.................................................................................................................................... 35
Editors’ Note to this Chapter Section............................................................................................... 36

INTRODUCTION
Wilson G. Pond
Animals in agriculture live on farms of all sizes ranging from a few animals per farm to several
thousand. Farm animal welfare is of concern in enterprises varying widely in size and in environ-
mental conditions. In this chapter, we describe the many contributions of farm animals in a global
society representing the economic spectrum from d eveloped countries to developing countries.
The dominant role of farm animals in the global economy is centered on animal source food
production. Foods of animal origin (fish, meat, milk, and eggs) provide an array of required nutri-
ents that are not always present in adequate amounts in plant source foods. Consumption of animal
products helps ensure sufficient intake of essential nutrients, including essential amino acids (par-
ticularly lysine, tryptophan, and threonine), essential fatty acids (omega-3 and omega 6), as well as
numerous vitamins and essential mineral elements (Carnagey and Beitz, 2011; Knight and Beitz,
2011). In addition to these conventional food nutrients, a group of foods known as functional foods
has been identified, most of which are unique to animal source foods. Several bioactive components
of proteins and lipids in milk, fish, meat, and eggs (Austic, Hsu, and Larrtey, 2011) from animals
have unique properties that provide enhanced physiological benefits to humans. An example of a
functional food component from ruminant animals is conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Research
indicates it is anti-carcinogenic and may reduce cardiovascular disease (Santos, O’Donnell, and
Bauman, 2011).
Also, evidence shows that some amino acids have functional roles in regulating key metabolic
pathways in non-ruminant animals, for example, swine (Wu and Kim, 2011). The improved nutri-
tional status of human populations is also associated with improved animal well-being as nutritional
status of food animals improves.
In developing countries, demand for animal source foods is increasing as income rises. This
increase in availability of animal source foods improves human nutrition, particularly in infants.
In addition, other important economic and cultural contributions of farm animals to society
worldwide include production of animal fibers, leather, and pharmaceutical and biomedical prod-
ucts, as well as draft power and utilization of food processing wastes. Additional benefits include the
enrichment of youth development through programs that enhance appreciation of the importance of
animal care and well-being in food animal production, and an array of service functions, including
companionship between humans and animals (addressed in Chapter 3).
Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society 15

REFERENCES
Austic, R.E., Hsu, K.-N., and Larrtey, F.M. 2011. Functional food components in animal source foods: Eggs
from chickens. In: Encyclopedia of Animal Science, Pond, W.G. and Bell, A.W., Eds. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press, pp. 466–469.
Carnagey, K.M. and Beitz, D.C. 2011. Animal source foods (ASFs) nutritional value. In: Encyclopedia of
Animal Science, Pond, W.G. and Bell, A.W., Eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 27–29.
Knight, T.J. and Beitz, D.C. 2011. Animal source foods (ASFs): Improvements. In: Encyclopedia of Animal
Science, Pond, W.G. and Bell, A.W., Eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 20–22.
Santos G.B., O’Donnell, A.M., and Bauman, D.E. 2011. Functional food components: Ruminant-derived
foods. In: Encyclopedia of Animal Science, Pond, W.G. and Bell, A.W., Eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press, pp. 470–472.
Wu, G. and Kim, S.W. 2011. Functional amino acids. In: Encyclopedia of Animal Science, Pond, W.G. and Bell,
A.W., Eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 462–465.

FARM ANIMALS IN DRAUGHT AND TRANSPORT

R. Anne Pearson
INTRODUCTiON
Animals have been used for agricultural work throughout the centuries, starting soon after cultivation
began. They have been used to carry loads, cultivate fields, and pull carts as well as more specific tasks in
harvesting and processing crops and trees and in water lifting and irrigation. As such, they make signifi-
cant, but often ignored contributions to society. Despite the increase in mechanization and use of motor-
ized forms of power throughout the world during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, many people
today continue to rely on animal power to complement human labor in agriculture and transport.

UsE OF ANimAls FOR WORK

Cattle are the most commonly used animals for work throughout the world. Water buffalo are also used
in the humid tropics, and donkeys, horses, mules, and camels in the drier and temperate areas. Camels,
yaks, llamas, dogs, and elephants are used in specific tasks in specific environments and even small rumi-
nants have been used to transport agricultural goods in mountainous areas where flocks move locations
with the seasons. Hence, working animals are maintained over a wide range of agro-ecological zones,
but are particularly common on small mixe d farms where rain-fed crops are grown mainly for food pro-
duction. On 70% of farms in developing countries, draught animals and humans provide the only power
input. This is largely because on farms where size and scale of enterprise rule out mechanical power,
animal power is the only means the farmers have of cultivating land, other than use of family labor.
Although draught animals make their greatest contribution in agriculture, they also have an
important role in transport. It has been estimated that about 20% of the population of the world
relies largely on animal transport of goods. Animal carts and sledges are used to transport goods and
people in rural areas, especially where roads are unsuitable for motor vehicles. Animal power reduces
the drudgery of many of the household activities such as water and fuel collection. Where wheeled
vehicles cannot be used, such as in mountainous areas where roads are absent or poorly developed,
pack animals may be used to transport goods. Working animals, particularly in North Africa and
Asia, make a considerable and important contribution to the urban economy, being used to transport
produce within urban areas. Many of the people owning and using these animals are landless people
for whom the animal represents the main way of earning a living (see Pritchard, 2010).
Draught animals are also used in the timber industry and to power stationary equipment such as
water pumps, sugar cane crushers, and grinding mills. Less widespread is their use in the movement
of materials in small-scale building projects and road, dam, and reservoir construction. Working
animals can also be found in certain niche operations in industrial enterprises—transporting fruits
and sugar cane to road heads in plantations and moving bricks in brick factories, for example.
16 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

NUmbERs OF ANimAls UsED FOR WORK

It is impossible to obtain precise information on the number of animals used for work purposes in
the world. Most countries maintain statistics on livestock numbers, but for ruminants, they do not
identify use for work separately from use for beef or milk. In many places, large ruminants are
multipurpose, being used for work, calf production, and ultimately beef as farmers try to make the
best use of the feed resources available on their farms. Most donkeys and mules kept in developing
countries can be assumed to be kept mainly for work. At least 60% of the horses kept in the trop-
ics are kept for draught work. In recent years, mules have become more popular—farmers in Latin
America are tending to replace their work oxen with mules and horses, and in North Africa, mules
are increasingly being favored over donkeys and horses where available. Speed, stamina, longev-
ity, and an ability to maintain body condition on low protein, high fiber diets have always made
mules popular but expensive to purchase. A review commissioned by the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) gives details of recent trends in the use of livestock for work around the world
(Starkey, 2010).

SKills iN SOCiETiEs UsiNG ANimAl POwER

In some areas of the world, draught animals are part of the traditional way of cultivating the land.
For instance, in Asia, North Africa, Ethiopia, Somalia, and in most of Latin America, people are
accustomed to training and managing their work animals. Implements are readily available locally,
usually made from local materials, with a local system to repair and replace them.
In other areas of the world, draught animal power is a more recent technology in cultivation
and crop production. For instance, until recently in West Africa and much of Sub-Saharan Africa,
animal diseases prevented the keeping of animals in many areas, and the traditional methods of
cultivating the land used manual labor only. It is only within the twentieth century that many people
have made use of draught animals on their farms in these areas. This follows the reduction in dis-
ease vector habitat and increased availability of veterinary treatments for the diseases. Because of
the relative newness of the animal power technology in these areas, the support infrastructure is not
always available locally. As a result, the animals and implements for purchase are expensive, and
they involve considerable investment by the farmers before the farmers can see the benefits and the
drawbacks for themselves. Often, implements are imported or manufactured by companies selling
a range of agricultural equipment. Although spares may be available, the manufacturers or retailers
can be some distance from the farm, and so repairs cannot be done in situ in the fields, as they often
can be in systems that are more traditional.
A lack of skill can often be seen where farm animals are used in transport enterprises in more
urban areas. In these operations, while some users have a long experience of working with animals,
others have little experience in livestock keeping. Equids tend to be favored over ruminants for their
greater speed in transport. The horse, mule, or donkey is used to provide a daily income, rather
as a vehicle would be used, and may be regarded as an expendable item by some, with little care
given to working practices or to the animal’s management and health. Cattle, buffalo, and camels
generally fare better, largely due to their resale value for meat. Thus, it is not surprising that the
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and animal charities operating to improve working animal
welfare and health more often voice welfare concerns for the working horse and donkey than for
the ruminant.

PRODUCTiON FROm WORKiNG ANimAls

The output from work animals as a contribution to the community is more difficult to assess than
that from beef or dairy animals. Draught force, speed, work, and power have all been used to assess
output of working animals. Area ploughed or cultivated and distance traveled or load carried in
Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society 17

transport are outputs that can be measured easily. Less immediate, perhaps, but important to the
farmer, is the yield of the crop their working animals have helped to produce. Manure is an impor-
tant by-product and one many small-scale farmers rely on to help maintain soil fertility, particularly
as the costs of chemical fertilizers continue to rise, putting them out of reach of many small-scale
farmers.
The amount of work an animal can do depends on the speed at which it works and the draught
force generated. For a particular draught force, the speed determines the power output of the ani-
mal, that is, the rate at which the animal does the work. Therefore, these parameters are all closely
related. Various aspects of the animal, the implement, the environment, and the operator all interact
to determine the amount of work done in a day.

NUTRiENT REQUiREmENTs OF WORKiNG ANimAls

Researchers have determined the nutrient requirements of working animals. Ruminants have
received the most attention (Lawrence and Pearson, 1991). However, interest in the performance
of working horses and donkeys has increased in recent years and their requirements are now more
fully understood (Perez, Valenzuela, and Merino, 1996; Pearson, 2005). The main requirement for
work is energy. Extra requirements for protein, minerals, and vitamins for work are not as large and
can usually be met by the increase in food given to meet the additional energy requirements. Energy
requirement during a working day is more closely related to distance covered than to the draught
force required to pull the implement or cart. Hence, animals doing light work such as pulling a cart
can expend more energy in a day than animals doing heavy work such as plowing. Even when oxen
are working for six to seven hours a day, their total energy expenditure in a working day is rarely
more than two times maintenance requirements. Horses and donkeys can exceed a requirement of
two times maintenance in a working day, but this is usually only when they are working steadily for
six or more hours per day.

CONsTRAiNTs TO PERFORmANCE
Many studies of the husbandry and use of working animals have been undertaken over the last 30
years (e.g., Copeland, 1985; EAAP, 2003; Pearson, Muir, and Farrow, 2008). As well as determin-
ing their capabilities, it is important to examine the constraints that can limit the contribution that
working animals can make. High ambient temperature and disease (e.g., Jaafar-Furo, Mshelia, and
Suleiman, 2008; Pritchard, Burn, Barr, and Whay, 2008) are well-known constraints to perfor-
mance. However, the constraint most often identified by working animal owners is nutrition. The
main problem is how best to meet the nutritional requirements for work with the feed resources
available. Location and season determine which feeds are given to work animals.
For most of the year, work animals consume poor-quality forage diets that have a high cell-wall
content, low nitrogen content, and poor digestibility. The metabolizable energy (ME) content of
these diets is rarely more than 9 MJ ME/kg and crude protein of 90 g/kg dry matter (DM). Research
studies have shown that any increase in rate of eating or improvement in digestibility on working
days, which results from increased energy demand during working periods, is not sufficient to meet
the additional energy requirement for most types of work when animals are fed such diets. In prac-
tice, most farmers working with animals expect their animals to lose weight during the work season
unless the diet is supplemented with better-quality feed. The start of the cropping season, when
animals are required to do the most work, is usually the time when food stocks are at their lowest,
particularly in areas that have a long dry or cold season. This further exacerbates the problem of
feeding for work.
The need for supplementation is greatest when animals are multipurpose, also being required to
maintain weight (if ultimately they are to be sold for meat), or if they are cows used for work and
are required to produce a calf.
18 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Various strategies are available to improve feed supply to work animals, dependent upon the
financial resources of the owner. The benefits of these techniques are well researched and widely
reported (e.g., Pearson, 1995; FAO, 2010), but adoption by draught animal farmers is often poor.

THE FUTURE
Continued mechanization of agricultural practices will occur where it is economically feasible, and
work animals will be replaced or used to complement mechanization on those farms that can justify
hire or maintenance of two- or four-wheeled tractor power. On steep, inaccessible, or terraced hill-
sides, and on mixed farms where farm size and scale of crop production are small, animal power
is still a better option than motorized power to supplement manual labor. On small farms of less
than 3 ha, animal power can compete economically with gasoline-fueled tractors. Farmers using
animal power will have to cope with competition for their land from a growing human population
and increasing pressure on natural resources. This is likely to lead to the cultivation of more mar-
ginal land and greater use of animals for multiple purposes (e.g., manure, work, and milk, or work
and calf production, or meat). Cropping of marginal land will require more attention to soil and
water conservation and animal-drawn tillage techniques. Reduction of grazing land may require
more farmers to move to a cut-and-carry system of managing their work animals. With the need to
use resources more efficiently, it is important to recognize that animal energy can be harnessed to
provide several income-generating activities for the smallholder farmer outside of their use in the
production of food and cash crops and their role in manure production. More versatile, and there-
fore more frequent, use of animal power is an ideal way to spread the maintenance costs. A resting
draught animal still uses resources, unlike a resting tractor. Hence, broader use of animal power
in the areas where it is found should also be encouraged. However, despite the value farmers put
on work animals in reducing their drudgery and supporting their food production and trade within
communities, as Starkey (2010) points out, animal power continues to have a “poor out-moded
image” within governments and many of the organizations and other institutions helping to improve
the livelihoods of their farming populations and those people supporting them. This is disappoint-
ing in view of the continuing contribution of animal power to food security and farm income on
many small farms around the world.

SUmmARY
The use of animals for work and the general contribution that they can make to alleviating drudgery
in the livelihoods of the people who use them are discussed in this section. Cattle are the most com-
monly used animals for work, followed by water buffalo and donkeys, but many other domesticated
animals are also worked in suitable environments where the need arises. In some areas, use of work-
ing animals goes back many centuries; in other areas, use is more recent commencing within the
twentieth century. Outputs, feed requirements, and constraints to performance are also discussed.

REFERENCEs
Copeland, J.W., Ed. 1985. Draught Animal Power for Production. Australian Centre of International Agricultural
Research (ACIAR) Proceedings Series No. 10, Canberra: ACIAR.
European Association of Animal Production (EAAP). 2003. Working Animals in Agriculture and Transport. A
Collection of Some Current Research and Development Observations. EAAP Technical Series No 6, The
Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2010. e-conference—Successes and failures with animal nutrition
practices and technologies in developing countries. September 1–30, 2010 (www.fao.org/docrep/014/
i2270e/i2270e00.pdf).
Jaafar-Furo, M.R., Mshelia, S.I., and Suleiman, A. 2008. Economic effects of Fascioliasis on animal traction
technology in Admawa State, Nigeria. J Appl Sci 8:1305–1309.
Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society 19

Lawrence, P.R. and Pearson, R.A. 1991. Feeding Standards for Cattle Used for Work. Scotland: Centre for
Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh.
Pearson, R.A. 1995. Feeding systems for draught ruminants on high forage diets in some African and Asian
countries. In: Recent Developments in the Nutrition of Herbivores, Journet, M., Grenet, E., Farce, M.H.,
Thériez, M., and Demarquilly, C., Eds. Proceedings of the IV International Symposium on the Nutrition
of Herbivores, Paris: INRA Editions, pp. 551–567.
Pearson, R.A. 2005. Nutrition and feeding of donkeys. In: Veterinary Care of Donkeys, Matthews, N.S. and
Taylor, T.S., Eds. Ithaca, NY: International Veterinary Information Service.
Pearson, R.A., Muir, C., and Farrow, M. 2008. Fifth International Colloquium on Working Equines. Proceedings
of an International Colloquium held at Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. October 30–No-
vember 2, 2006. Devon: The Donkey Sanctuary.
Perez, R., Valenzuela, S., and Merino, V. 1996. Energetic requirements and physiological adaptation of draught
horses to ploughing work. Anim Sci 63: 343–351.
Pritchard, J.C. 2010. The role of working donkeys, mules and horses in the lives of women, children and other
vulnerable groups: A review. In preparation.
Pritchard, J.C., Burn, C.C., Barr, A.R.S., and Whay, H.R. 2008. Validity of indicators of dehydration in working
horses: A longitudinal study of changes in skin tent duration, mucous membrane dryness and drinking
behaviour. Equine Vet J 40: 558–564.
Starkey, P.H. 2010. Livestock for traction: World trends, key issues and policy implications. Paper prepared
for Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch (AGAL), Animal Production and Health
Division, FAO, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy.

CROP AND ANIMAL PROCESSING WASTES

Wilson G. Pond and Kevin R. Pond
The human population is expected to increase from the current 6 billion to 8 to 9 billion by 2030.
Land available for food production is finite. The dramatic increases in food production resulting
from agricultural research and technology and other contributing advances have provided increased,
although not adequate, food for a growing world population. A major challenge to society now is to
continue to meet the demand for food and other products of agriculture within the constraints of a
finite land area and limited natural resources. One factor contributing to a solution is the improved
utilization of crop and animal processing wastes. Recycling of wastes from an array of animal and
plant sources is used effectively and widely in animal and crop production.
Uses of processing wastes are described as follows:

… food processing waste generally is either a potential feed ingredient for farm animal or pet food
or a potential nutrient source for crops. For example, in cereal processing firms such as breweries,
distilleries, and feed mills, by-products are not wasted but marketed as livestock feed ingredients.
Similarly, in meat processing firms, poor-quality meat by-products can be converted to better-quality
human food-products by means of breakdown and recombination of by-product components. Other by-
products such as stomachs, intestines, and fish wastes are converted to pet foods. Finally, poor-quality
effluent may be used on cropland as a nutrient source. (CAST, 1995)

In addition to animal feed constituents, inedible animal fats and other animal food processing
wastes are used to produce soap, lubricants, cosmetics, candles, floor waxes, paints, varnishes, and
other products of value to society.
Crop residues can be utilized in several ways: fuel, animal feed, bulking agents in manure and
sewage sludge composting systems to produce organic wastes that are safe, stable, and unobjection-
able for land application as fertilizer (CAST, 1995). These and other approaches are being used to
reduce crop-processing losses. These advances include the following:

1. Composting of manure, bedding, dead animals, and hatchery wastes for land application.
2. Production of methane and other biogas fuels from the above-composted products by
anaerobic fermentation.
20 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

3. Improving the digestibility of nutrients in common feedstuffs to reduce levels of ­carbon (C);
nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) lost in manure by using new technology (e.g., use of the
enzyme phytase to improve utilization of P bound in plant feedstuffs).
4. Developing methods to reduce water volumes used in animal source food production.
5. Continuing pursuit of innovative, safe, and cost-effective ways of utilizing food-processing
wastes in food animal production (CAST, 1995) to enhance sustainable agriculture through
improved resource utilization. In addition, a worthwhile goal (CAST, 1995) for animal
agriculture is to reduce wastes during food processing that currently occur between harvest
and delivery to the consumer. Meeting this goal will improve the welfare of food animals
on a global basis by enhancing efficiency of utilization and improved nutrition of food
animals.

SUmmARY
A major challenge to society in the twenty-first century is the rate of increase in the global popu-
lation in a finite space on the planet. Large quantities of processing wastes are generated from
crop and animal production. These wastes are used to produce soap, cosmetics, candles, paints,
methane, ethanol, and many other products that improve the welfare of food animals globally by
enhancing efficiency of feed utilization and total food and feed production for a burgeoning human
population.

REFERENCEs
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 1995. Waste management and utilization in food
processing. Ames, IA: Author.

ANIMAL FIBERS, HIDES AND PELTS, AND LEATHER

Wilson G. Pond and Kevin R. Pond
Wide genetic variation exists in mature size and other traits among animals native to different
regions and climates in which they are raised. This variation offers an opportunity for breed-
ers to tailor the genetic base of animals to the local environment for improved performance
and efficiency. This concept has been adopted for use in temperate and tropical environments.
There are now more than 250 registries and associations in the United States and Canada that
promote particular species or breeds and that maintain breeding records (Bixby, Christman,
Ehrman, and Sponenberg, 1994). Some are concerned with the common breeds of farm ani-
mals. Others focus on uncommon breeds of domestic animals and their crosses and on wild
species. Worldwide, there is interest in dozens of other species, hybrids, and breeds and their
crosses that have potential for commercial or subsistence level of food, hide, and fiber pro-
duction. The U.S. National Research Council (1991) published a paper on micro-livestock, a
term used for species within which some individuals are phenotypically and genetically small
compared with the breed average. Such micro-livestock are found in cattle, sheep, goats, pigs,
and poultry in which some individuals are less than half the mature sizes of average repre-
sentatives of the breed. Because of a survey of many animal scientists in 80 countries, it was
determined that about 40 breeds and species have sufficient genetic diversity to select for
small size to expand micro-livestock populations for use in developing countries. This would
allow taking advantage of the ecological interdependence of animal, plant, and human life, the
limited amount of the earth’s surface that can be safely cultivated, and the innate advantages
of small animals to the subsistence family with no refrigeration, and with limited cash, space,
and animal feed. Animal well-being would be expected to improve because of a better match
of feed supply with animal needs.
Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society 21

Several species of mammals and birds contribute to society through production of wool, hair,
feathers, leather, pelts, and other inedible by-products used in the manufacture of clothing, uphol-
stery, carpets, bedding, and other products of the livestock industry. Here we describe briefly exam-
ples of the importance of many domesticated mammals and birds in providing leather, fibers, and
other by-products of the food animal industry.

MAmmAls
Cattle (beef cattle, dairy cattle, and swine), in addition to their production of meat and milk for food,
contribute significantly to the economic value of the animal by yielding hides for leather and hair
used in clothing, accounting for approximately 50% of the total by-product value of cattle. Similarly,
sheep and goats produce wool and mohair, respectively, widely used in the clothing industry and
representing a significant fraction of the total value of the products of the sheep and goat industry,
including meat and milk production.
Other mammals used in some cultures for both food and fiber or hides include rabbits, camels,
llamas, alpacas, and vicunas (Ullrey and Bernard, 2000). Collectively, camels and llamas are known
as camelids, with an even number of toes on each foot and anatomical characteristics that distinguish
them from true ruminants. For example, the muscle attachments in the hind legs allow them to rest
on their knees when lying down. The Old World camelids include the two-humped Bactrian camel
and the one-humped Arabian or dromedary camel. The Bactrian camel is found in the cool desert
regions of Central Asia, while the dromedary is found in the hot deserts of North Africa. Both are
used for transport, draft, meat, milk, fiber, and hides. The New World camelids include the guanaco,
vicuna, and domestic llama and alpaca. The guanaco ranges from the Andean highlands in Ecuador
and Peru to the plains of Patagonia. Vicunas live near the snow line of the Andes and have a highly
prized fine wool fleece. Alpacas are bred primarily for their wool (Nowak, 1991). Llamas are used
mostly as beasts of burden, but their meat may be used for food, fleece for clothing, hair for rope,
and hide for leather. The four South American camelids (llamas, alpacas, guanacos, and vicuna)
have the same chromosome number (Clutton-Brock, 1987) and will interbreed. Llamas and alpacas
have become increasingly numerous in the United States as pets and for production of fibers.

BiRDs
Chickens, Ducks, Geese, and Turkeys
Commercial production of poultry and eggs in the United States began in the early 1800s and
gradually evolved into a massive industry in the United States and globally. The poultry industry in
the United States involves specialized production units devoted to broilers for meat and layer hens
for egg production. Animal welfare concerns are of paramount interest for both industries. Ongoing
changes in regulations regarding animal care and welfare of chickens (both broilers and layers) and
other poultry continue to receive attention.
Vertically integrated production systems involving thousands of birds have been so success-
ful that today nearly all broilers in the United States are produced under some type of contract
arrangement. The system is less frequently used in turkey production; however, if a contract is not
used, production is coordinated by some other arrangement between the processor and the growers.
Modern chicken meat strains have been developed by cross-breeding layer lines with meat lines.
Turkey growing is similar to growing of broiler chickens, but involves a two-stage system in
which day-old turkey poults are started in a brooder house and transferred to a larger growing house
at about six weeks of age and marketed weighing 10 to 40 pounds.
Ducks and geese can be raised successfully in confinement on litter floors and do not require
swimming water for growth, health, or reproduction. Young ducklings are sometimes started on slat-
ted floors or raised wire. Commercial houses often provide an indoor litter area and an outside run.
22 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Geese are excellent grazers and can be grown on pasture with limited supplemental feeding,
although many geese are raised indoors without pasture.

Ostriches
Ostriches are large, flightless birds that are 2 to 2.4 m tall and weigh between 110 and 150 kg. Along
with emus and several other large bird species, they are known as ratites. Ostrich feathers were used
widely by the fashion industry nearly a century ago, and ostrich leather has been used in boots, shoes,
and other leather goods for many years. The commercial ostrich industry began in the mid-nineteenth
century in Africa, where the ostrich is indigenous. Ostrich breeding in the United States began in the
1980s. More than one-half of ostrich breeding in the United States is in Texas, California, Arizona,
and Oklahoma. Some ostrich meat is imported from South Africa, but most is produced in the United
States. A marketing system for ostrich leather is developing in the United States.

Emus
Emus are indigenous to Australia. Emus are 1.5 to 1.8 m tall and weigh between 50 and 65 kg at
maturity. Emu production in the United States is relatively new, but is growing steadily. Products
include garment leather, plumage, and meat for gourmet restaurants.

SUmmARY
Animals that produce food for people also provide a wide range of non-food products, including
wool, mohair, and feathers, as well as hides and pelts used in clothing, shoes, and other leather
products. A wide genetic variation within and between breeds and crosses results in opportunities to
increase quantity and quality of animal products available for human populations everywhere and
also offers new opportunities to enhance the welfare of both humans and animals.

REFERENCEs
Bixby, D.E., Christman, C., Ehrman, C.J., and Sponenberg, D.P. 1994. Taking Stock: The North American
Livestock Crisis. Granville, OH: McDonald & Woodward.
Clutton-Block, J. 1987. A Natural History of Domestic Animals. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Nowak, R.M. 1991. Walker’s Mammals of the World, Volume 2, 5th ed. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Ullrey, D.E. and Bernard, J. 2000. Other animals, other uses, other opportunities. In: Introduction to Animal
Science, Pond, W.G. and Pond, K.R., Eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 553–583.
U.S. National Research Council. 1991. Microlivestock: Little Known Small Animals with a Promising Economic
Future. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

USE OF ANIMALS IN NUTRITIONAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Wilson G. Pond and Kevin R. Pond
The use of farm animals and other animals as surrogates for humans, and animals in agricul-
tural and biomedical research has a long history. Virtually every advance in human and veterinary
medicine over the past century has a foundation in animal research. Nutrients, including vitamins,
mineral elements, protein, amino acids, fat, and fatty acids known to be required by humans were
discovered to a large degree by research in animals, including pigs and other farm animals, along
with laboratory animals such as rats, mice, and other small animals and birds. Metabolic processes
were defined, and the safety and effectiveness of consumer products, drugs, medical devices, and
medical procedures were established.
Continuing research on techniques to repair congenital heart defects, control cancer, cure diabe-
tes, reverse Alzheimer’s disease, treat cystic fibrosis and muscular sclerosis, and control HIV and
many other diseases requires the use of animals.
Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society 23

Diagnostic tools such as electrocardiography, angiograms, endoscopy, and cataract removal, as

well as surgical procedures, organ transplantation (e.g., heart and heart valves), and artificial joint
replacement continue to be developed because of animal model research as a vehicle for improved
human health and well-being. Major advances have been made in the use of allotransplantation
(human-to-human replacement) of kidneys and heart valves. Transplantation of animal organs in
human patients (xenotransplantation) is complicated by tissue rejection of the xenograft. The use of
pig hearts for xenotransplantation in humans offers promise (Platt, 2005). These well-established
approaches for the benefit of humans raise legitimate concerns and questions related to animal
welfare. The ethical and social implications of the use of animals as surrogates for humans in
biotechnology and biomedical research have been and continue to be addressed by the scientific
community. (CAST, 1995; Clutton-Block, 1991; Crawford, 1996; National Research Council, 1996;
Pond and Pond, 2000).
Worldwide, it is estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals are used annually (from
zebra fish to nonhuman primates). Invertebrates and vertebrates, including mice, rats, fish, frogs,
and animals not yet weaned are not included in the figures. One estimate of mice and rats used in
the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million.

SUmmARY
Agricultural and laboratory animals have contributed to major advances in knowledge of human and
animal health and progress in knowledge of nutrition and physiology. Most advances in human and
veterinary medicine had a foundation in animal research. Metabolic processes were defined and the
safety of consumer products was established with animals. The ethical and social implications of the
use of animals as surrogates for humans in biotechnology and biomedical research continue to be
addressed by scientists and palicymakers. See Chapter 14 for detailed accounts of these advances. Also,
see sections titled “Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Products,” “Laws, Regulations, and Oversight
Mechanisms for Research Studies with Agricultural Animals in the United States,” and “The Role of
Animal Agriculture in Enrichment of Youth Development Through Organized Hands-On Exposure to
High standards of Animal Welfare in Food Animal Production” for additional related information.

REFERENCEs
Council of Agricultural Science and Technology. 1995. Waste management and utilization in food production
and processing. CAST Task Force Report No. 124.
Clutton-Block, J. 1991. A Natural History of Domestic Animals. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Crawford, R.L. 1996. A review of the Animal Welfare Report data: 1973 through 1995. National Agriculture
Library, Animal Welfare Information Center Newsletter, 7(2): 1–11.
National Research Council. 1996. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington D.C.:
National Academies Press.
Platt, J.L. 2005. Biotechnology: Xenotransplantation. In: Encyclopedia of Animal Science, Pond, W.G. and
Bell, A.W., Eds. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 152–154.
Pond, K.R. and Pond, W.G. 2000. Introduction to Animal Science. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

PHARMACEUTICAL AND BIOMEDICAL PRODUCTS

Christian E. Newcomer
HisTORiCAl HiGHliGHTs OF PROGREss iN THE UsE OF FARm ANimAls iN BiOsCiENCEs
The use of farm animals for scientific advances in the development of pharmaceutical products
and in biomedical research has a long historical precedent dating to the antiquities and several
important contemporary medical practices had their origins in farm animal studies. Regrettably,
animal welfare considerations were not featured in those early studies. Galen, the famous physician
24 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

(of Greek origin) in Rome during the second century vivisected pigs and goats in an effort to for-
mulate an understanding of the circulatory system, concluding erroneously that there were two
separate and unlinked systems. Avenzoar (also known as Ibn Zhur), a Spanish Muslim surgeon
and physician of the twelfth century rejected Galen’s views and established the general concept of
experimental surgery and that the principles of surgery should be proven in animal subjects before
being applied to humans (Abdel-Halim, 2005). Among his many other contributions, Avenzoar
performed a tracheotomy in a goat to demonstrate the safety of this procedure for use in humans.
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, drawing on the work investigating electri-
cal conductivity of animal tissues, Dutch physiologist Willem Einthoven developed a more sensi-
tive string galvanometer than had previously been used for recording heart muscle conductivity
and also successfully imaged and identified the different wave formations of the electrocardiogram
(ECG), assigning the letters P, Q, R, S, and T to the various deflections. He later commercialized
the first electrocardiograph and described the electrocardiographic features of a number of car-
diovascular disorders. Using Einthoven’s device, Thomas Lewis, who is credited with introducing
cardiology into clinical practice, published a paper detailing his careful clinical and electrocar-
diographic observations of atrial fibrillation (Lewis, 1912). Lewis had worked with a veterinarian
to identify a horse with this condition. Using the string galvanometer’s ECG recording, and then
following the horse to the slaughterhouse, he could visually confirm the fibrillating atrium. The
use of the ECG as a basic medical parameter has now been practiced for decades, and large ani-
mal models continue to contribute to the development of new measures for cardiovascular health
in humans and animals through the collaborations of physicians, veterinarians, and scientists in
various disciplines.
In addition to the role farm animal species have played historically in anatomical and physi-
ological studies of import to the concepts of medicine and surgery, the observations of parallels and
associations of contagious diseases in farm animals with humans has stimulated many important
medical discoveries. In 1796, William Jenner conclusively documented that material in the crusts
of cowpox lesions was capable of inducing protective immunity against smallpox, and introduced
the concept of vaccination. Louis Pasteur, along with Robert Koch, is credited with the establish-
ment of the germ theory. They used sheep to demonstrate the role of anthrax bacteria in disease and
later to develop a protective vaccine for treatment of anthrax. Pasteur’s studies on the elimination
of bacterial contamination in fluids, or pasteurization, brought us safe milk products and served as
the stimulus for Joseph Lister to develop the principles of aseptic surgery. In the late 1800s in the
United States, Theobold Smith, a veterinarian studying cholera in swine, was the first to discover,
isolate, and describe organisms in the genus Salmonella, a major group of pathogens in humans and
animals although not the causative agent of hog cholera.
The speed with which we could identify the retrovirus HIV as the causative agent of AIDS
has its origins in studies with farm animals. Retroviruses were detected in solid tumors of chick-
ens in the early twentieth century and have been studied extensively since that time (Medawar,
1997). Scientific efforts to understand the biology of bovine leukemia virus since the 1970s have
aided in the identification of HTLV-1 and HTLV-2 retroviruses that cause human cancer. There
are many examples of human health improvement resulting from product development for farm
animals. For example, ivermectin, an anthelmintic compound, was developed primarily for the
elimination of parasites in livestock. However, due to the positive therapeutic effect of ivermec-
tin in equine parasitic (Onchocerca) eye infections, the agent was used in human clinical trials
for the treatment of river blindness caused by the human parasite Onchocerca volvulus. When
this program was launched, 1 million people in West Africa alone (and 18 million worldwide)
suffered from this parasitic infection; 100,000 of these had serious eye problems (including
35,000 who were blind). Because of this intervention, ocular Onchocerca infection has largely
been eliminated as a public health problem and as an obstacle to socioeconomic development
globally.
Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society 25

CURRENT ADVANCEs iN THE UsE OF FARm ANimAls iN THE DEVElOPmENT

OF PHARmACEUTiCAl AND BiOmEDiCAl PRODUCTs

Farm animals continue to play a significant role in pharmaceutical and biomedical product develop-
ment, both as an extension of the inherent characteristics that made them valuable models initially
and now increasingly as a result of the fact that they can be genetically engineered to express novel
products of medical and commercial importance (e.g., in the mammary gland to be harvested from
milk). Farm animals also have been recognized for several decades to be useful models for spon-
taneous animal and human disease, many of which have a clear genetic underpinning, and these
animal models are invaluable for the elucidation of the basic disease mechanisms (Andrews, Ward,
and Altman, 1979). In the era of modern molecular biology and genetic engineering, genetically
engineered rodent models have become the favored models for understanding molecular mecha-
nisms and developing therapeutic interventions such as new pharmacological compounds, biophar-
maceuticals, small interfering RNAs, and gene therapy. However, once the proof of principle for
these compounds is met in small animal models, a resurgence in the use of the larger farm animal
models for the demonstration of their clinical efficacy is very likely if relevant animal models are
available. A few representative examples of the use of farm animals for the development of pharma-
ceutical and biomedical products are presented in the following paragraphs.

Birds
Chickens and, to a lesser degree, quail are used for the generation of polyclonal antibodies (the active
component in antiserum), which can be simply extracted from the yolk of the immunized bird. The
immunization of hens represents an excellent alternative for the generation of polyclonal antibodies
and affords a substantial animal welfare benefit because egg collection is noninvasive compared to
the usual method of collection of serum for isolation of antibodies that requires repeated blood with-
drawal (Hau and Hendriksen, 2005). Moreover, chickens are inexpensive to maintain and produce
abundant numbers of eggs. These antibodies can be used as experimental or diagnostic reagents and
are showing promise as therapeutic agents in animal and human diseases, particularly for infectious
diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. Chickens with ovarian cancer have molecular markers of dis-
ease similar enough to those in humans to define a model for predicting the stage of progression of
human ovarian cancer (Gonzalez Bosquet et al., 2010). In addition, genetically modified chickens
have been developed that fail to propagate avian influenza virus and, therefore, do not perpetuate
the cycle of contagion (Lyall et al., 2011). This approach could be used in commercial flocks and
thereby eliminate their contribution to the spread of pandemic flu and the emergence of new strains
of influenza through interspecies transmission of viral infections.

Mammals
Equine species are used for the production of equine estrogens, which are useful therapeutic agents
in the management of some of the conditions and symptoms of the postmenopausal period in women
(Stovall, 2010). In addition, the horse has been used historically for the development of antiserum to
toxins (e.g., tetanus antitoxin) and to snake and other venoms. Although horse antiserum has been
replaced in many instances, especially since its use is highly associated with “serum sickness,”
which is an immune complex disorder, there are still many types of venom for which it remains the
sole therapeutic agent. In many regions of the world, purified horse antiserum is also the primary
therapeutic agent for botulism.

Small Ruminants
Sheep and goats are also used in the production of antiserums (antibodies) for use as experimen-
tal and diagnostic reagents and, to a lesser degree, as therapeutic antitoxin agents for enveno-
mations (Seger and Krenzelok, 2005). Sheep and goats are also occasionally used as models to
26 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

train personnel in the techniques of minimally invasive surgery involving the urogenital tract
and as models for the study and treatment of urologic conditions. Sheep and goats have been used
extensively for the development and testing of artificial joints, bone cements, bone and cartilage
replacement products, and therapeutic approaches to osteoarthritis (Martini, Fini, Giavaresi, and
Giardino, 2001). Sheep and goats also have been used for the development and testing of various
types of cardiac assist devices (Weiss, 2005) and for materials used in vessel surgery and repair.
Genetically modified goats have been created to produce valuable novel proteins in their milk,
allowing ease of collection and an abundant supply following purification of the desired product.
One product reportedly nearing approval by the Food and Drug Administration is produced from
goats genetically modified to produce the human form of the protein antithrombin, which prevents
blood clotting (http://www.gtc-bio.com/). One in 5000 individuals produces insufficient amounts
of antithrombin, and patients prone to clotting following coronary bypass surgery may also benefit
from this product to prevent excessive clotting and complications such as stroke. Another geneti-
cally modified goat model developed at the University of California-Davis produces lysozyme in
its milk; this molecule is important for the destruction of harmful bacteria in the digestive tract,
offering some hope of a convenient means for protecting infants in the developing world where
diarrheal disease kills 2 million infants annually (Maga et al., 2005). A goat also has been devel-
oped that produces the soluble components of spider silk (the material of the spider’s web). This
material is stronger and more flexible than steel and is a lightweight alternative to carbon fiber
(Boyle, 2010). It is important to note that in each of these genetically manipulated goat lines,
the animals are behaviorally, clinically, and reproductively normal, which limits the ethical and
practical issues related to the expansion and maintenance of their populations (Fahrenkrug et al.,
2010).

Cattle
Genetically modified cattle that are otherwise normal in phenotype have been generated using vari-
ous types of transgenic technology. One genetically modified bovine developed by the USDA secretes
the antimicrobial protein lysostaphin in the milk, which confers greater resistance to the develop-
ment of mastitis in the cow from staphylococcal infection. This achievement marks a significant
step toward the development of disease-resistant livestock. Using a different transgenic approach,
scientists inserted a human artificial chromosome containing the entire human immunoglobulin
loci into the germ line of cows (Robl, 2007). These cattle generate human antibodies in their blood,
creating the potential for the generation of a variety of valuable medical therapeutic products. The
products have application to the management of antibiotic-resistant infections, immune deficiency,
biodefense, and many other immune-mediated conditions simply through immunization of the ani-
mal with the agent of interest followed by the collection and purification of the antibodies from
the blood of the cattle (http://www.hematech.com/). Bovine calves also have been used extensively
since the mid-1960s for the development and testing of artificial hearts, cardiac assist devices, other
cardiovascular instruments, and materials to overcome disease conditions of the heart (Delano,
Mischler, and Underwood, 2002).

Swine
Swine have been an especially prominent animal model for the investigation of cardiovascular
diseases of humans and for the development of apparatus, materials, and approaches used in the
medical and surgical management of human cardiovascular diseases. The cardiovascular system of
swine has unique anatomical and physiological parallels with that of humans. Swine are omnivores
and readily susceptible to dietary-induced atherosclerosis, a major contributing factor to human
heart and vascular disease (Swindle, 1998). This has facilitated their extensive use for the develop-
ment of techniques to treat atherosclerosis and its complications. The skin of pigs also has char-
acteristics very similar to those of humans, making them extremely valuable models for plastic
surgery and studies of skin injury and repair and associated therapeutic agents. Swine are proven to
Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society 27

be valuable in many other clinical research applications (Laber et al., 2002). Due to their abdomi-
nal size and overall comparability of the anatomy of their abdominal organs to those of humans,
swine have served as the primary model for surgical training in laparoscopic and endoscopic tech-
niques and the development of new surgical instruments and surgical procedures (Srinivasan, Turs,
Conrad, and Scarbrough, 1999; van Velthoven and Hoffmann, 2006). Approximately 1000 articles
have been published on the use of swine in this area alone. Pigs also have been genetically modified
for various research and future commercial applications. In one of the genetically modified models,
the cellular surface marker responsible for the acute rejection of pig organs by humans and other
primates has been removed, which offers the prospect that pig organs might one day be available
for xenotransplantion into humans (Platt, 2001, 2011a,b). Organs from these pigs have a markedly
prolonged survival rate compared to that for normal pig organs transplanted into nonhuman pri-
mates (Ekser et al., 2010). Through additional genetic modification to further protect graft survival
via modulation of the immune response in the graft recipient (i.e., nonhuman primate or human),
these pigs may solve the problem of the critical shortage of human-compatible donor tissues, cells,
and organs (http://www.revivicor.com/index.html).

SUmmARY
Farm animals have filled an important niche in our efforts in biological discovery, product and
technique development, and product testing historically and into the current era. The use of farm
animal species as animal models will likely intensify as cellular and molecular biology advances
yield new approaches to disease therapy and leaps in technology provide new products that must be
tested in animal models deemed clinically relevant to humans. In addition, the husbandry, manage-
ment systems, and veterinary care of farm animals are already well established, of high quality,
and subject to continuous review and improvement efforts. With due consideration of satisfactory
ethical review and outcomes, this facilitates an easy transition from our humane use of farm ani-
mals for the natural characteristics we value (i.e., food and fiber) to the pursuit of newly introduced
characteristics by transgenic technology that benefit the advancement of medicine and improve
patient care.

REFERENCEs
Abdel-Halim, R.E. 2005. Contributions of Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) to the progress of surgery: A study and transla-
tions from his book Al-Taisir. Saudi Med J Sept. 26(9): 1333–1339.
Andrews, E.J., Ward, B.C., and Altman, N.H., Eds. 1979. Spontaneous Animal Models of Human Disease, Vols.
1 and 2. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Boyle, R. 2010. How modified worms and goats can mass-produce nature’s toughest fiber, http://www.popsci.
com/science/article/2010-10/fabrics-spider-silk-get-closer-reality
Delano, M.L., Mischler, S.A., and Underwood, W.J. 2002. Biology and diseases of ruminants: Sheep, goats
and cattle. In: Laboratory Animal Medicine, 2nd ed. Fox, J.G., Anderson, L.C., Loew, F.M., and Quimby,
F.W., Eds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 519–611.
Ekser, B., Echeverri, G.J., Hassett, A.C., Yazer, M.H., Long, C., Meyer, M., Ezzelarab, M., Linm, C.C.,
Hara, H., van der Windt, D.J., Dons, E.M., Phelps, C., Ayares, D., Cooper, D.K., and Gridelli, B. 2010.
Hepatic function after genetically engineered pig liver transplantation in baboons. Transplantation 90(5):
483–493.
Fahrenkrug, S.C., Blake, A., Carlson, D.F., Doran, T., Van Eenennaam, A., Faber, D., Galli, C., Gao, Q.,
Hackett, P.B., Li, N., Maga, E.A., Muir, W.M., Murray, J.D., Shi, D., Stotish, R., Sullivan, E., Taylor, J.F.,
Walton, M., Wheeler, M., Whitelaw, B., and Glenn, B.P. 2010. Precision genetics for complex objectives
in animal agriculture. J Anim Sci 88(7): 2530–2539.
Gonzalez Bosquet, J., Peedicayil, A., Maguire, J., Chien, J., Rodriguez, G.C., Whitaker, R., Petitte, J.N.,
Anderson, K.E., Barnes, H.J., Shridhar, V., and Cliby, W. A. 2010. Comparison of gene expression pat-
terns between avian and human ovarian cancers. Gynecol Oncol 120 (2): 256–264.
Hau, J. and Hendriksen, C.F. 2005. Refinement of polyclonal antibody production by combining oral immuni-
zation of chickens with harvest of antibodies from the egg yolk. ILAR J 46(3): 294–299.
28 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Laber, K.E., Whary, M.T., Bingel, S.A., Goodrich, J.A., Smith, A.C., and Swindle, M.M. 2002. The biology and
diseases of swine. In: Laboratory Animal Medicine, 2nd ed. Fox, J.G., Anderson, L.C., Loew, F.M., and
Quimby, F.W., Eds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 615–655.
Lewis, T. 1912, A lecture on the evidences of auricular fibrillation, treated historically. Br Med J 1: 57–60,
doi:10.1136/bmj.1.2663.57.
Lyall, J., Irvine, R.M., Sherman, A., McKinley, T.J., Núñez, A., Purdie, A., Outtrim, L., Brown, I.H., Rolleston-
Smith, G., Sang, H., and Tiley, L. 2011. Suppression of avian influenza transmission in genetically modi-
fied chickens. Science J331(6014): 223-226.
Maga, E.A., Shoemaker, C.F., Rowe, J.D., Bondurant, R.H., Anderson, G.B., and Murray, J.D. 2006. Production
and processing of milk from transgenic goats expressing human lysozyme in the mammary gland. J
Dairy Sci 89(2): 518–524.
Martini, L., Fini, M., Giavaresi, G., and Giardino, R. 2001. Sheep model in orthopedic research: A literature
review. Comp Med 51(4): 292–299.
Medawar, P.B. 1997. Historical introduction to the general properties of retroviruses. In: Retroviruses. Coffin,
J.M., Hughes, S.H., and Varmus, H.E., Eds. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Press.
Platt, J.L. 2001. Immunology of xenotransplantation. In: Sampter’s Immunologic Diseases. Philadelphia, PA:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 1132–1146.
Platt, J.L. 2011a. Xenotransplantation: Biological barrier. In: Encyclopedia of Animal Science, Volume II, 2nd
ed. Ullrey, D.E., Baer, C.K., and Pond, W.G., Eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 1113–1116.
Platt, J.L. 2011b. Xenotransplantation: Biological barrier. Encyclopedia of Animal Science, Volume II, 2nd ed.
Ullrey, D.E., Baer, C.K., and Pond, W.G., Eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 1117–1120.
Robl, J.M. 2007. Application of cloning technology for production of human polyclonal antibodies in cattle.
Cloning Stem Cells 9(1): 12–16.
Seger, D., Kahn, S., and Krenzelok, E.P. 2005. Treatment of US crotalidae bites: Comparisons of serum and
globulin-based polyvalent and antigen-binding fragment antivenins. Toxicol Rev 24(4): 217–227.
Srinivasan, A., Trus, T.L., Conrad, A.J., and Scarbrough, T.J. 1999. Common laparoscopic procedures in swine:
A review. J Invest Surg 12(1): 5–14.
Stovall, D.W. 2010. Aprela, a single tablet formulation of bazedoxifene and conjugated equine estrogens
(Premarin) for the potential treatment of menopausal symptoms. Curr Opin Investig Drugs 11(4):
464–471.
Swindle, M.M. 1998. Surgery, Anesthesia and Experimental Techniques in Swine. Ames, IA: Iowa State
University Press.
van Velthoven, R.F. and Hoffmann, P. 2006. Methods for laparoscopic training using animal models. Curr Urol
Rep 7 (2): 114-119.
Weiss, W.J. 2005. Pulsatile pediatric ventricular assist devices. ASAIO J 51(5): 540-545.

LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS FOR RESEARCH

STUDIES WITH AGRICULTURAL ANIMALS IN THE UNITED STATES
Christian E. Newcomer
INTRODUCTiON
The legal and regulatory framework for the oversight of research using laboratory animals in the
United States is now approaching its 50-year landmark, and the use of agriculturally important
mammalian species as animal models pertaining to the exploration of the biology and diseases
of humans has fallen under the purview of these regulations for most of that period. The regula-
tory framework has strengthened over time and has become considerably more focused with the
significant and convergent changes that occurred during the mid-1980s. In 1985, working under
independent statutory authorities, the Animal Welfare Act Regulations (AWAR) (AWA, 1990) and
the Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy)
(PHS 2002) adopted new progressive provisions emphasizing institutional accountability. The poli-
cies and regulations worked together to harmonize the approach and expectations for federal over-
sight of the care and use of animals used for research in the United States. The convergent interest
of these regulations was the manifold considerations of and attention to the promotion of animal
Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society 29

welfare and the controls that needed to be in effect to detect and impede potential points of failure in
assuring animal welfare within institutions. The key regulatory advancement was the requirement
that an organization conducting animal research that fell under regulatory jurisdiction must develop
an institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). The IACUC serves to foster, review,
and monitor an institution’s program of animal care and use to ensure ongoing regulatory compli-
ance and to provide a thoughtful and deliberative platform for the institution to address emerging
needs of animal models and scientists as scientific knowledge advances and new requirements and
opportunities become evident. Two excellent professional guidance documents used in conjunction
with the regulatory oversight of research in the United States and abroad also re-emphasize the
importance of the IACUC in meeting the institution’s requirements for the care and use of research
animals. These are The Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and
Teaching, 3rd edition (Ag Guide) (FASS, 2010) and The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals, 8th edition (Guide) (ILAR, 2011). These two important guidance documents are also used
as primary standards for the independent, voluntary, peer-review accreditation program performed
by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International. The
balance of this section briefly explains the interrelationships and key features of the regulatory and
oversight entities, mechanisms, and guidance documents mentioned.

DEFiNiNG THE REGUlATORY FRAmEwORK AND GUiDANCE DOCUmENTs

Congress enacted the original legislation in the United States governing research animal care in
1966 under Public Law (P.L.) 89-544 as the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (LAWA). At that
time, the LAWA regulated animal dealers that handled dogs and cats and laboratories that used
dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, and nonhuman primates. During the 1970s’ amendments
under P.L. 91-579, Congress changed the name of the law to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA, 1990)
and authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate other warm-blooded animals when used
in research, exhibition, or the wholesale pet trade. This was the first time that agricultural animals
used in some research applications were included in the regulatory framework. The basis for cover-
age under the AWA regulations rests with its definition of the term “animal” and there are important
exclusions. Specifically, quoting from the section on definitions in the AWAR,

This term (animal) excludes birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use
in research; horses not used for research purposes; and other farm animals, such as, but not limited to,
livestock or poultry used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for
use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving
the quality of food or fiber.

Thus, a vast majority of the research activities currently conducted in agricultural species is not
covered today by the AWAR, but with the growth of agriculturally important animal models in a
wide variety of facets of biomedical research and product development, the coverage of agricultural
animals is increasing. The Research Facility Inspection Guide (APHIS, 2001) provides the crite-
ria and examples used by the Veterinary Medical Officers (VMO) from APHIS’s (APHIS, 2006)
Animal Care (AC) program to determine whether the farm animals in particular studies at an insti-
tution should be included in the inspection process.
An AC VMO inspects institutions registered and licensed as research animal facilities at least
annually, and their findings are the basis for evaluating the institution’s regulatory compliance.
Institutions are expected to have effective IACUCs, personnel training efforts, and programs of vet-
erinary care to ensure ongoing compliance with the AWAR. With regard to compliance with stan-
dards, institutions are expected to adhere to Part 3 of the AWAR (Standards), which covers facilities
and operating standards, animal health and husbandry standards, and transportation standards.
Although the standards are specific and even prescriptive for many of the covered species, the
30 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

standards in the AWAR for farm animals are written in general terms. In instances where the insti-
tution’s provisions of oversight are deemed ineffectual, regulatory enforcement is achieved through
increased inspections, the opportunity for prompt corrective action in many instances, the issuance
of fines for serious or repetitive noncompliance, or the suspension or revocation of licensure.
Institutions that receive funding from the Public Health Service are required to comply with the
Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy).
As authorized by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985, the PHS Policy requires institutions
to establish and maintain measures to ensure the appropriate care and use of all vertebrate animals
involved in research, research training, and biological testing activities conducted or supported by
PHS. Some other federal agencies also expect the programs operating under their jurisdiction to
follow PHS Policy standards (e.g., the Veterans Administration Policy requires compliance with the
PHS Policy even if PHS funds are not received by the research unit in question). The PHS Policy
requires compliance with the Guide and the American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines
for Euthanasia. Institutions are required to have an approved Assurance on file with the Office of
Laboratory Animal Welfare within the PHS. The Assurance document explains the institution’s
provisions for compliance with the Guide. It is permissible for an institution to delimit the scope of
PHS coverage in its Assurance extending compliance with the provisions of the Guide only to those
studies required by the source of funding, but excluding all other studies. Institutions that choose to
take this approach, therefore, could make the claim that many studies conducted in farm animals for
the purpose of improving food and fiber production are required to comply with Guide standards.
On the other hand, if the institution states that all vertebrate animals at the institution are covered
by the Assurance, then the PHS will expect the institution to comply with either the Guide or the Ag
Guide when agricultural species are used in research or teaching depending on the source of fund-
ing for the activity and other discriminating criteria provided by the institution.

RECENT REVisiON OF EXisTiNG GUiDEs

The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals has recently been revised, and the release
of the Guide, 8th edition (ILAR, 2011) has already generated considerable interest and discussion.
It is a very comprehensive document that expands the discussion of many issues in animal care and
use significantly in comparison to the previous edition published in 1996, and it offers an institu-
tion a roadmap to establishing a sound program for the success of biomedical research, testing, and
teaching in research animal models. The Guide describes the essential components of an institu-
tion’s overall animal care and use program; considerations and provisions for the animals’ environ-
ment, housing, and management; multiple facets of a competent program of veterinary care; and
the requirements for an adequate physical plant. The Guide also addresses the issue of dichotomous
treatment of agricultural animals in research depending upon whether their use is aligned with a
biomedical inquiry versus an agricultural inquiry. It also notes that the institutions occasionally find
that the categorization of research animal studies presents a dilemma. It suggests, therefore, that
IACUCs should make the decisions concerning the standards of care for the agricultural animals
used in research studies based upon the researcher’s goal and the concern for well-being of the ani-
mals. The Guide also acknowledges that the Ag Guide is a useful resource for agricultural animals
maintained within typical farm settings.
The Ag Guide, 3rd edition, is a scholarly and authoritative professional guidance document pub-
lished by the Federated Animal Science Societies (FASS) in 2010. Although the document lacks
regulatory standing, it carries enormous credibility by virtue of its expert authorship and the careful
consideration and extensive review of scientific literature on many topics. As noted previously in
this section, there are many circumstances in which agricultural animals could be used in research
without any regulatory oversight if neither the funding source for the research nor the category of the
research (as non-food and fiber related) dictated. The voluntary adoption of the recommendations of
the Ag Guide by institutions conducting studies under these circumstances would be an ideal solution
Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society 31

for the protection of the quality and integrity of the scientific research, as well as an effective tool
in assuaging public concerns about the use of agricultural animals in research. Although it seems
fair to speculate that most institutions subscribe to the Ag Guide in these situations, the number of
outliers is unknown. The Ag Guide has many parallels with the Guide, especially pertaining to the
expectations of an institution’s essential policies and provisions for the program of animal care and
use. For example, it identifies the need for a properly structured and functioning IACUC with writ-
ten operating procedures for animal health care, biosecurity, personnel qualifications and training,
occupational health, and special considerations. Individual chapters are dedicated to animal health
care including husbandry, housing and biosecurity, environmental enrichment, animal handling,
and transport, as well as six key animal species areas. There are also several key inconsistencies
between the Ag Guide and the Guide in the areas of space recommendations, sanitation schedules,
and environmental conditions, which will require reconciliation by the IACUC through the review
of scientific literature and expert opinion or by prevailing regulatory mandates.
Since 1985 when IACUCs were established by U.S. Public Law as noted previously, they have
been recognized as a seminal development for the improvement of the welfare of animals used in
research. The regulators, the regulatory community, and the professional scientific societies who
produce guidance documents have acknowledged the importance of strong internal institutional
oversight provisions embodied in the IACUC. In addition, the guidelines or national legislation
for animal care and use in research in many other countries mimics this general approach, which
further validates its value. There are variations in the committee structure and function of IACUCs
across the United States with respect to regulations and the non-regulatory guidelines offered by
nongovernmental agencies or professional societies, which are beyond the scope of this discussion.
However, the central features are very similar. Committee members should have appropriate train-
ing and expertise and represent a variety of perspectives to achieve an appropriate balance in their
oversight of the program and the approval of research activities. For example, the Ag Guide, which
has enhanced membership requirements, specifies that committee members should include an agri-
cultural scientist with teaching or research experience; an animal, dairy, or poultry scientist who
has agricultural animal management experience; a veterinarian knowledgeable about agricultural
animal medicine; a member whose primary concerns are in an area outside of science; and a person
who is not affiliated with the institution and who represents general community interests in the
proper care and treatment of animals. The IACUC is required to review and approve, when appro-
priate, animal use protocols for research and teaching at the institution to ensure that it is justified,
scientifically sound, prudent, and conducted under conditions that consider and preserve animal
welfare throughout all phases of the activity. In addition to the information in the regulations, the
Guide and the Ag Guide aid IACUCs in conducting a conscientious and competent protocol review
process. There are other sources of extensive information on this subject (Silverman, 2007). The
IACUC is also empowered to disapprove inappropriate proposals and suspend ongoing activities
that prove to compromise animal welfare. In addition to the vital function of protocol review and
approval, IACUCs are responsible for evaluating the facilities available for research animal stud-
ies and the entire program of animal care and use at the institution. Programmatic review entails
knowing and critically assessing the institution’s resources pertaining to the following require-
ments for acceptable animal care and use: Conditions of the physical plant in animal facilities and
animal study areas; expertise, training, and staffing levels of personnel supporting or conducting
research with animals; occupational health and safety concerns related to animal care and use and
experimental conditions; provisions for veterinary care to ensure the health, welfare, experimental
reliability, and robustness of animals used in research in accordance with prevailing standards; and
assurance that the operations provide the appropriate environment, housing, husbandry, and man-
agement of research animals. Through the IACUC’s rigorous process of facility and programmatic
review, the institution, at a minimum, is afforded the opportunity to plan and take timely, effective,
self-corrective actions to correct weaknesses or deficiencies in the institution’s resources dedicated
to the care and use of animals in research and teaching. Under optimal conditions, the IACUC can
32 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

play a helpful role in encouraging the institution to be forward thinking in initiatives to meet emerg-
ing scientific and educational needs in a contemporary manner.

VOlUNTARY PARTiCiPATiON OF INsTiTUTiONs iN AAALAC

Many institutions choose to participate in a voluntary, confidential, expert peer-review accreditation
program developed by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal
Care International (AAALAC International). This includes institutions that fall under regulatory
mandates in the United States or other regions of the globe, as well as programs that operate in
unregulated environments. AAALAC International is a non-profit, nongovernmental organization
that has operated its accreditation program for more than 45 years and now accredits more than 830
organizations in 33 nations around the globe. Within the United States, more than 600 organiza-
tions are accredited and these include university, pharmaceutical, governmental, commercial, and
contract research programs with substantial agricultural components. Among those accredited in
the United States are 19 Land Grant Institutions and other universities emphasizing agricultural
research and teaching programs. AAALAC International accreditation relies upon three primary
standards. These are The Guide, The Ag Guide, and the new European Directive 2010/63/EU on
the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes, which contains accommodation and care
standards from the European Treaty Series 123. The peer-review process is comprehensive and
entails the thorough review of an institution’s facilities, policies, programs, procedures, and person-
nel qualifications in support of animal care and use programs. Institutions must meet all regulatory
requirements that pertain to activities with research animals in their environment as well as relevant
portions of the standards identified previously. The experts chosen to conduct the site visit are
selected with due regard to the type of institution, the animal models used in research and teach-
ing, the scientific areas emphasized in the institution’s research, and the avoidance of any conflicts
of interest. Subsequently, the experts on the site visit team must engage a much larger delibera-
tive body, the Council on Accreditation, who determines whether accreditation should be granted.
Organizations that attain accreditation must meet or exceed applicable standards and maintain
quality programs that ensure animal health, well-being, and welfare as the platform for productive
scientific inquiry using animal models for research.

SUmmARY
The regulatory standards and framework governing the use of farm animals in research have
improved significantly since the mid-1980s, and many organizations are required to comply with
these regulations. In addition to the mandated regulatory standards that are selectively applied, the
number of organizations electing to adopt and adhere to the guidelines proposed in the authoritative
reference, The Ag Guide, and participate in the voluntary, peer-review accreditation program of
AAALAC International is increasing. The combination of the mandated and voluntary provisions
for the oversight of the use of farm animals in research, teaching, and testing appears to be work-
ing well and increases our prospects of ethical and successful outcomes in these endeavors. These
measures also help build the public’s support and confidence in our use of farm animals in research
applications. However, they do not comprise an impervious system of farm animal research over-
sight sufficient to detect and correct problem areas in every instance.

REFERENCEs
APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). 2001. Research Facility Inspection Guide. Available at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/rig.shtml (Accessed February 10, 2011).
APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). 2006. Animal Care Policy Manual. Available at www.
aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/policy.shtml (Accessed February 10, 2011).
Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society 33

AWA (Animal Welfare Act). 1990. Animal Welfare Act. PL (Public Law) 89-544. Available at www.nal.usda.
gov/awic/legislat/awa.htm (Accessed February 10, 2011).
AWAR (Animal Welfare Act Regulations). Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title9-vol1/
xml/CFR-2009-title9-vol1-chapl-subchapA.xml (Accessed February 10, 2011).
FASS (Federation of Animal Science Societies). 2010. The Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals
in Research and Teaching, 3rd ed. Available in PDF at http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=216&auto
try=true&ULnotkn=true (Accessed February 10, 2011).
ILAR. 2011. The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8th ed. Washington, D.C.: Institute for
Laboratory Animal Research, National Academies Press.
PHS (Public Health Service). 2002. Public Health Service on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.
Publication of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health, Office
of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm
(Accessed February 10, 2011).
Silverman, J., Suckow, M.A., and Murthy, S., Eds. 2007. The IACUC Handbook, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.

ROLE OF ANIMAL AGRICULTURE IN ENRICHMENT OF YOUTH

DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ORGANIZED HANDS-ON EXPOSURE TO HIGH
STANDARDS OF ANIMAL WELFARE IN FOOD ANIMAL PRODUCTION
Christopher Boleman, Aaron Alejandro, and Cherie Carrabba
Youth involvement and engagement through organized hands-on experience in animal agriculture
has been recognized for many years. A unique interaction takes place between youth and livestock
and poultry. This relationship is sometimes challenging to define to the general public, but the life
skills, especially an increased sense of responsibility and discipline in youth, gained through this
interaction are well documented, and the impact on animal welfare and husbandry practices sus-
tained (Boleman, Cummings, and Briers, 2004).
Before discussing these life skills, we first delve into the history of the relationship between
youth and animals. This history can be documented most effectively through the evolution of 4-H
and Future Farmers of America (FFA) programs.

4-H ClUbs AND FFA CHAPTERs

The 4-H clubs were beginning to form at the turn of the twentieth century. According to Wessel and
Wessel (1982), Cornell University’s Liberty Hyde Bailey developed and disseminated educational
leaflets on agriculture for youth interested in a career in agriculture as early as 1896. During the
early 1900s, several other states developed similar educational pamphlets and distributed them to
potential future farmers because of the impact that Bailey’s work was having on youth in New York.
During this same time, other states began hosting youth corn contests. Illinois, Georgia, Oregon,
Missouri, Nebraska, and Indiana were all hosting some type of corn or agricultural exhibit. Not
only did these exhibits reveal the highest quality and prize-winning products, but also exhibitors
were able to discuss their crops and answer questions concerning farming their crops (Wessel and
Wessel, 1982). In 1914, the Smith-Lever Act was passed. The passing of this act provided the finan-
cial support for the Cooperative Extension Service to be successful (Wessel and Wessel, 1982). This
also allowed the 4-H program to be housed under the Cooperative Extension Service.
According to Reck (1951), World War I was a key contributor to the growth of 4-H. This growth
in membership was directly related to the fact that America was at war and needed more food and
fiber to sustain itself during that time. In order to ensure that adult farmers were using the best, most
effective production practices, County Extension Agents in the field seized the opportunity to work
with youth and teach them practices for production of food and fiber. These youth took their knowl-
edge home and helped convince their parents to adopt these new farming practices. As a result, farm
production levels increased (Wessel and Wessel, 1982).
34 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

During this same period, FFA was being established through the Smith-Hughes Vocational
Education Act in 1917. Similar to the origins of 4-H, the idea for what would be known as FFA was
initiated with the introduction of agricultural clubs in schools with Virginia being the first to estab-
lish such a club. The actual formation of the FFA was in 1928. In terms of membership growth, the
trends were the same for FFA as for 4-H. The FFA program experienced tremendous growth during
the late 1920s and into the 1930s.
It is also worth pointing out that high school students learned about animal agriculture through
agriculture science courses offered in middle and high school. This is separate from 4-H club and
FFA chapter experiences. These classes demonstrated academic rigor and relevance related to ani-
mal welfare. More than a “club,” classroom instruction afforded a focused opportunity of learning
and it was then complemented by the “hands-on” aspects of supervised programs for agriculture
experience.
Since 1930, both 4-H and FFA have evolved to include even more members and a wide variety
of programs and projects. However, the pledges and mottos remain the same. The 4-H motto and
pledge are as follows:

In support of the 4-H club motto, to make the best better, I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart
to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service, and my health to better living, for my club, my commu-
nity, my country, and my world.

The FFA motto is as follows:

Learning to do, doing to learn, earning to live, and living to serve.

Obviously, these mottos help to reveal the relevance of these organizations in the past, the present,
and into the future. In addition, they help to recognize the fact that these youth members who exhibit
livestock projects at county, state, and national livestock shows and rodeos are indeed “learning by
doing” and “making the best better.”

THE GROwTH OF LiVEsTOCK PROJECTs

Calf, swine, and dairy clubs increased significantly during World War I. Reck (1951) said that these
projects increased because private donors supported these efforts by donating livestock to the youth
for their projects. By 1917, states began to have youth shows. According to Wessel and Wessel
(1982), the Minnesota State Livestock Breeders Association was the first show to offer youth cash
prizes and to help counties hold calf and colt shows. By 1917, two men, T.A. Erickson and W.A.
McKerrow, joined this livestock breeders association to establish Minnesota’s first junior livestock
show (Reck, 1951).
Livestock shows have grown since 1918 and become a symbol of the 4-H and FFA youth organi-
zations. Although it is very challenging to determine the total number of livestock projects exhibited
by youth across the nation, a study in Texas in 2000 revealed that Texas 4-H and FFA members
accounted for over 70,000 entries for cattle, swine, meat goats, and sheep across the state (Boleman,
Howard, Smith, and Couch, 2001).

STUDiEs SPECiFiC TO YOUTH LiVEsTOCK PROJECTs

According to Boyd, Herring, and Briers (1992), the development of life skills through experiential
learning is the cornerstone of the 4-H program and the same can be said for FFA. More specifically,
livestock projects are an extremely valuable vehicle for developing life skills.
A study conducted by Ward (1996) asked 4-H alumni to reflect on the impact that exhibiting
livestock projects had on their development of life skills. According to respondents, the meaningful
Contributions of Farm and Laboratory Animals to Society 35

life skill impacts were accepting responsibility, relating to others, spirit of inquiry, decision-making,
public speaking, maintaining records, and building positive self-esteem.
Rusk, Martin, Talbert, and Balshweid (2002) came to similar conclusions from their study of
Indiana 4-H youth that judged livestock. For this study, the most meaningful results noted were that
youth learned how to defend a decision, gained knowledge of the livestock industry, and developed
oral communication skills, as well as decision-making skills, self-confidence, problem solving,
teamwork, self-motivation, self-discipline, and organizational skills.
Finally, Boleman, Cumming, and Briers (2004) ascertained the life skills gained from youth
exhibiting beef, swine, sheep, or goat livestock projects. They concluded that the five highest life
skills gained were accepting responsibility, setting goals, developing self-discipline, self-motiva-
tion, and knowledge of the livestock industry.

THE ROlE OF 4-H AND FFA YOUTH iN ENHANCiNG WElFARE OF

ANimAl AGRiCUlTURE AND COmPANiON ANimAls
The learning process about animal care responsibilities begins with the careful example and influ-
ence of adult leaders and advisors responsible for training and guiding youth. This influence is fun-
damental to the continuance of animal-friendly husbandry practices that ensure animal health and
well-being. Animal welfare is indeed one of the fundamental educational priorities within youth
and animal projects. Over the past 10 years, many state 4-H and FFA programs have implemented
quality assurance programs that ensure youth are learning and applying the appropriate quality
assurance practices. These include Pork Quality Assurance and Quality Counts (Boleman, Chilek,
Coufal, Kieth, and Sterle, 2003).

SUmmARY AND CONClUsiONs

Youth development is definitely enhanced by hands-on experience gained through interactions with
animals. Many people hear testimonials from adults who once raised livestock as youth to learn
about their positive experiences and the impact raising these livestock had on their lives. In many
instances, the livestock project enhanced the child’s relationships with his or her family and friends.
The livestock project requires the help and cooperation of family members. Parents, siblings, and
grandparents often become involved in the project. It helps the family unit develop common goals
and an understanding of the financial side of agriculture. Quite simply, the farm animals they raised
helped shape who they are, the character attributes they possess, and the positive life skills they
develop and use every day of their lives.

REFERENCEs
Boleman, C.T., Chilek, K.C., Coufal, D., Kieth, L., and Sterle, J. 2003. Quality counts: Quality assurance,
character education. Texas AgriLife Extension Service. Publication: CHE-1.
Boleman, C.T., Cummings, S.R., and Briers, G.E. 2004. Parents’ perceptions of life skills gained by youth
participating in the 4-H beef project. Journal of Extension 42(5). Retrieved May 30, 2011, http://www.
joe.org/joe/2004october/rb6.shtml
Boleman, C.T., Howard, J.W., Smith, K.L., and Couch, M.C. 2001. Trends in market steer, lamb, swine, and
meat goat projects based on county participation: A qualitative and quantitative study. Texas 4-H Research
Review 1: 52–62.
Boyd, B.L., Herring, D.R., and Briers, G.E. 1992. Developing life skills in youth. Journal of Extension 30(4).
Retrieved October 24, 2002, http://www.joe.org/joe/1992winter/a4.html
Reck, F.M. 1951. The 4-H Story, a History of 4-H Club Work. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Rusk, C.P., Martin, C.A., Talbert, B.A., and Balshweid, M.A. 2002. Attributes of Indiana’s 4-H livestock judg-
ing program. Journal of Extension 40(2). Retrieved June 21, 2002, http://www.joe.org/joe /2002april/
rb5.php
36 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Ward, C.K. 1996. Life skill development related to participation in 4-H animal science projects. Journal of
Extension 34(2). Retrieved April 19, 2000, http://www.joe.org/joe/1996april/rb2.html
Wessel, T. and Wessel, M. 1982. 4-H: An American Idea 1900–1980, A History of 4-H. Chevy Chase, MD:
National 4-H Council.

EDITORS’ NOTE TO THIS CHAPTER SECTION

The book editors commend the authors of this chapter section for the historical overview of the
important role that 4-H and FFA programs have in youth development and in animal welfare
improvements in farm animals.
Not included in this chapter section is a brief account of a major challenge to the ideals and mis-
sion of leaders of 4-H and FFA. In the last decade of the twentieth century and extending into the
early years of the twenty-first century, episodes of cheating to alter animal appearance or weight
have been documented. These cases of animal abuse and unethical behavior among adult and youth
exhibitors in show rings have been chronicled in the popular press and consequently the issues and
remedies have been addressed by youth leaders, show managers, and judges. A strict code of eth-
ics is required in the show ring. 4-H and FFA are primarily youth development organizations. As
emphasized by the authors of this chapter section, the exhibition of projects is only the final stage of
a process intended to develop responsibility, goal-setting, and leadership skills. A major role of 4-H
and FFA in livestock projects is to advance the concept of improving farm and companion animal
welfare as well as personal integrity in future leaders in our society.
 3 Contributions of Animals
in Human Service
A Two-Way Path
Duane Ullrey

CONTENTS
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 39
References....................................................................................................................................40

Temple Grandin has said, “Animals make us human,” and used those words in the title of her latest
book (Grandin and Johnson, 2009). One might question this opinion when viewing the questionable
care and cruelty sometimes visited upon animals by humans, but there is little doubt that animals
helped us become—thousands of years ago—warriors, hunters, and farmers. However, have they
made us…or will they make us…human?
If to be human is to be humane, let us hope. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines humane
as “marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for other human beings or animals.” To the
extent that animals can help us merit that description, let us, by all means, increase our interac-
tions with them. Most humans who love animals report a personal benefit from those associations.
For some, it may be a chance to escape the stress of modern life and revel in the joys of play. For
those with special needs, the benefits may be more specific. Guide dogs steer their human masters
safely around sidewalk obstacles and across streets. The hearing impaired may be alerted to ring-
ing telephones by trained dogs or cats. For those seeking safety from home invasion, barking dogs
can frighten off intruders. These and other benefits help explain why Americans own 93.6 million
cats, 77.5 million dogs, 13.3 million horses, ponies, donkeys, and mules, and additional millions of
birds, fish, reptiles, and small mammals (2009/2010 National Pet Owners Survey; www.american-
petproducts.org).
The human-animal bond has a long history (Walsh, 2009a), and animals have been respected
partners in human survival, health, and healing in cultures worldwide since ancient times.
Archeological evidence indicates that domesticated wolves, ancestors of the dog, were being used
as guardians, guides, and partners in hunting and fishing over 14,000 years ago (Price, 2002).
Both dogs and cats were assuming crucial roles in agriculture 5000 years later—dogs in herding,
as livestock guardians, and in pulling carts and sleds, and cats in protecting grain stocks from
rodents. Some American Indians and indigenous people of Asia and Africa still draw symbolic
meaning and teachings from animals. Their historical importance as pets is illustrated by the
discovery, in the ruins of Pompeii, of the bones of a dog named Delta—identified by his engraved
silver collar—­lying next to the bones of a child. Over 63% of U.S. households, and over 75% of
those with children, currently have at least one pet (Walsh, 2009b). Some of these pets are highly
pampered, receiving presents on holidays, special savory meals, and time off work by their masters
to tend them when they are ill.
Pet ownership has been shown to correlate with lower blood pressure, serum triglycerides, and
cholesterol levels, and may be more effective in ameliorating the cardiovascular effects of stress

37
38 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

than the presence of a spouse or friend (Allen, Blascovich, and Mendes, 2002). Following a heart
attack, patients with pets had a significantly higher one-year survival rate than those without, and
if the pets were dogs, the patients were 8.6 times more likely to be alive (Friedman and Thomas,
1995). Interactions with companion animals increase blood neurochemical concentrations associ-
ated with relaxation and improve function of the human immune system (Charnetsky, Riggers, and
Brennan, 2004). A broad range of studies has found that these interactions tend to reduce anxiety,
depression, and loneliness among humans in hospitals, eldercare environments, schools, and pris-
ons. Walsh (2009a,b) has summarized these and other positive effects.
Although most dogs are now kept as pets, many have performed—or still perform—duties
in addition to those mentioned previously. In the past, some have turned a treadmill connected
to a roasting spit or butter churn. Dogs with herding instincts are still used by the stockman in
the management of cattle and sheep, and some are used to discourage the presence of geese and
seagulls on beaches, park lawns, and airfields. Sled dogs, although now used mostly in sporting
competition, still transport supplies and people in arctic regions. Circus and actor dogs pro-
vide entertainment by performing for human audiences in person, in movies, or on television.
The American Humane Association, founded in 1877, believes that “dogs, books, and kids go
together like peanut butter, jelly, and bread” (www.americanhumane.org), and sponsors a chil-
dren’s literacy program that addresses problems of low confidence and poor reading skills by
encouraging children to read to their dogs.
Service animals are not legally considered pets, and most undergo extensive training to live and
work as partners with humans in specialized roles. Police dogs are trained specifically to assist in
law enforcement or military duty, and are often referred to (when using a homophone of canine) as
members of a K9 Corp. These dogs fulfill several roles, including officer protection, chasing and
detaining suspects, search and rescue of missing persons during natural or man-made disasters,
finding cadavers, and detection of drugs and explosives. They may even wear a ballistic vest on
dangerous missions and have their own police badge. Popular breeds, with identifiable special-
ties, include the Argentine Dogo, German Shepherd, Dutch Shepherd, Belgian Malinois, Boxer,
Labrador Retriever, Doberman Pinscher, Springer Spaniel, Bloodhound, Beagle, Rottweiler, and
Giant Schnauzer. Police dogs were first assigned official responsibilities in Europe in 1859 when
the Belgian police force in Ghent began using them to patrol with night-shift personnel. An excerpt
from the January 15, 1938, London Times quotes Colonel Hoel Llewellyn, Constable of Wiltshire,
as follows:

A good dog with a night duty man is as sound a proposition as you can get. The dog hears what the
constable does not, gives him notice of anyone in the vicinity, guards his master’s bicycle to the death,
and remains mute unless roused. He is easily trained and will go home when told to do so with a mes-
sage in his collar.

In the United States, the Codes of Federal Regulation for the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (www.ada.gov) defines a service animal as

any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the ben-
efit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals with impaired
vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection
or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items.

Dogs of many breeds (or crossbreeds) have been used to aid the autistic, the visually or hearing
impaired, those requiring mobility assistance, or to alert others of a condition requiring a medical
response. However, these services have not been limited to dogs.
Capuchin monkeys have been trained to perform various manual tasks for the seriously handi-
capped such as retrieving dropped items, microwaving food, opening drink bottles, washing a quad-
riplegic’s face, and turning the pages of a book (www.helpinghandsmonkeys.org). Miniature horses
Contributions of Animals in Human Service 39

have been trained to guide the blind, pull wheelchairs, and to provide secure walking support for
persons with severe Parkinson’s disease (www.guidehorse.org). “Comfort animals” may be used
as a specific part of therapy designed to improve motivation and the physical, social, emotional, or
cognitive function of human patients. This is termed animal-assisted therapy (AAT) and may be
provided by a therapist on an individual or group basis. Many animal species have been used in
AAT, including dogs, cats, horses, elephants, dolphins, rabbits, birds, lizards, and other small ani-
mals. The Dolphin Research Center in Grassy Key, Florida, offers a five-day program for children
and adults with special needs, including dockside contact with dolphins and an opportunity to swim
with them. Even exotic fish tanks, found frequently in physician waiting rooms, may serve to lessen
patient anxiety.
When Liz Hartel, who ordinarily used a wheelchair because of polio, won the silver medal in
dressage at the 1952 Olympics, the potential of horses in rehabilitation of human patients began
receiving serious attention. In 1969, the North American Riding for the Handicapped Association
was founded as a federally registered nonprofit organization. There are now over 3500 certified
handicapped riding instructors and 800 member centers around the globe, helping more than 42,000
children and adults face physical, mental, and emotional challenges (www.narha.org).
Therapeutic horse riding has been shown to encourage responsibility and development of new
skills, to provide companionship, nonjudgmental acceptance of disabilities, and a variety of physi-
cal and neuromuscular benefits (All, Loving, and Crane, 1999; Benda, McGibbon, and Grant, 2003).
Kaiser, Smith, Heleski, and Spence (2006b) studied the effects of a therapeutic riding program on
psychosocial measurements among children considered at risk of failure or poor performance in
school or life because of family circumstances, and among children in special education programs
due to emotional impairment or learning disabilities. None of the psychosocial measures for at-risk
children was different after completion of the riding program, although three of sixteen measures
of motor coordination were significantly improved. Total anger score was significantly reduced by
therapeutic riding among special education children, but the greatest psychosocial benefit was seen
in boys whose expressions of anger were significantly reduced and whose mothers perceived signifi-
cant improvements in behavior. It is interesting that the horses used in this riding program exhibited
a significant increase in stress-related behaviors when ridden by at-risk children, particularly girls
(Kaiser, Heleski, Siegford, and Smith, 2006a). These authors suggested that these children appeared
to transfer some of their anger from their family situation to their horses, but because girls tend to
repress anger more than boys do, they may have expressed more of that repressed anger or expressed
it more intensely.
Finally, if animals make us human, then humans surely have an ethical responsibility for the
welfare of those animals. That obligation is particularly clear for the animal companions providing
the benefits just described. However, in this writer’s view, that obligation extends to the myriad ani-
mal and plant species with which we share the earth. Nature’s ecosystems nourished our evolution
and provided for our needs. If we want that beneficial relationship to continue, we must care for our
environment and the creatures that live there, as though our lives depend upon it.

SUmmARY
The historical association of humans with companion animals was discussed, but their contribu-
tions to humans in modern times received greatest emphasis. Special attention was given to service
animals that assist police and military personnel, the visually and hearing impaired, and those who
have severe physical disabilities. Notable are dogs, cats, monkeys, and horses. These and other listed
species also play significant roles in decreasing human anxiety and loneliness, and in improving
health status, cognitive function, and feelings of self-worth. These benefits for humans warrant
reciprocal effort to ensure appropriate care for the animals that provide them. Thus, we have an
obligation to understand and meet companion animal needs, just as we expect them to understand
and assist us with ours.
40 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

REFERENCEs
All, A.C., Loving, G.L., and Crane, L.L. 1999. Animals, horseback riding, and implications for rehabilitation
therapy. J Rehabil 65: 49–57.
Allen, K.M., Blascovich, J., and Mendes, W.B. 2002. Cardiovascular reactivity in the presence of pets, friends,
and spouses. Psychosomatic Med 64: 727–739.
Benda, W., McGibbon, N.H., and Grant, K.L. 2003. Improvements in muscle symmetry in children with cere-
bral palsy after equine-assisted therapy (hippotherapy). J Altern Complement Med 9: 817–825.
Charnetsky, C.J., Riggers, S., and Brennan, F. 2004. Effect of petting a dog on immune system functioning.
Psychological Reports 3: 1087–1091.
Friedman, E. and Thomas, S. 1995. Pet ownership, social support, and one-year survival after acute myocardial
infarction in the cardiac arrhythmia trial. Am J Cardiology 76: 1213–1217.
Grandin, T. and Johnson, C. 2009. Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best Life for Animals. New York:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Kaiser, L., Heleski, C.R., Siegford, J., and Smith, K.A. 2006a. Stress-related behaviors among horses used in a
therapeutic riding program. J Am Vet Med Assoc 228: 39–45.
Kaiser, L., Smith, K.A., Heleski, C.R., and Spence, L.J. 2006b. Effects of a therapeutic riding program on at-
risk and special education children. J Am Vet Med Assoc 228: 46–52.
Price, E.O. 2002. Animal Domestication and Behavior. New York: CABI publishing.
Walsh, F. 2009a. Human-animal bonds I: The relational significance of companion animals. Family Process
48: 462–480.
Walsh, F. 2009b. Human-animal bonds II: The role of pets in family systems and family therapy. Family Process
48: 481–500.
Section II
Treatment of Animals and
Societal Concerns
 4 The Opinions and
Recommendations of One
Particular Study Group
The Pew Commission on Industrial
Farm Animal Production
Robert P. Martin

CONTENTS
Commission Findings.......................................................................................................................46
Background on Public Health...........................................................................................................46
Pew Commission and Public Health Recommendations..................................................................46
Complete Public Health Recommendations of the Pew Commission.............................................. 47
1. Restrict the use of antimicrobials in food animal production to reduce the risk of
antimicrobial resistance to medically important antibiotics................................................. 47
Background............................................................................................................................ 47
2. Clarify antimicrobial definitions to provide clear estimates of use and
facilitate clear policies on antimicrobial use......................................................................... 48
Background............................................................................................................................ 49
3. Improve monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial use in food animal production to
assess accurately the quantity and methods of antimicrobial use in animal agriculture...... 49
Background............................................................................................................................ 49
4. Improve monitoring and surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in the food supply,
the environment, and animal and human populations in order to refine knowledge of
antimicrobial resistance and its impacts on human health.................................................... 50
Background............................................................................................................................ 50
5. Increase veterinary oversight of all antimicrobial use in food animal production to
prevent overuse and misuse of antimicrobials....................................................................... 51
Background............................................................................................................................ 51
6. Implement a disease-monitoring program and a fully integrated and
robust national database for food animals to allow 48-hour trace-back
through phases of their production........................................................................................ 52
Background............................................................................................................................ 52
7. Fully enforce current federal and state environmental exposure regulations
and legislation, and increase monitoring of the possible public health effects
of IFAP on people who live and work in or near these operations........................................ 53
Background............................................................................................................................ 53
8. Increase research on the public health effects of IFAP on people living and
working on or near these operations, and incorporate the findings into a
new system for siting and regulating IFAP............................................................................ 54

43
44 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Background............................................................................................................................ 54
9. Strengthen the relationships between physicians, veterinarians, and public health
professionals to deal with possible IFAP risks to public health............................................ 54
Background............................................................................................................................ 55
10. Create a Food Safety Administration that combines the food inspection and safety
responsibilities of the federal government, USDA, FDA, EPA, and other federal
agencies into one agency to improve the safety of the U.S. food supply............................... 55
Background............................................................................................................................ 55
11. Develop a flexible, risk-based system for food safety from farm-to-fork to
improve the safety of animal protein produced by IFAP facilities....................................... 55
Background............................................................................................................................ 56
12. Improve the safety of our food supply and reduce use of antimicrobials by more
aggressively mitigating production diseases (disorders associated with IFAP
management and breeding).................................................................................................... 56
Background............................................................................................................................ 56
Background on Environmental Issues............................................................................................... 56
Conclusion of Pew Commission on the Environment and ........................................................
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations................................................................................. 57
Complete Environmental Recommendations of the Pew Commission............................................ 57
1. Improve enforcement of existing federal, state, and local IFAP facility
regulations to improve the siting of IFAP facilities and protect the health of
those who live near and downstream from them................................................................... 57
Background............................................................................................................................ 58
2. Develop and implement a new system to deal with farm waste (that will replace the
inflexible and broken system that exists today) to protect Americans from the adverse
environmental and human health hazards of improperly handled IFAP waste.................... 59
Background............................................................................................................................60
3. Increase and improve monitoring and research of farm waste to hasten the
development of new and innovative systems to deal with IFAP waste and to
better our understanding of what is happening with IFAP today..........................................60
Background............................................................................................................................ 62
4. Increase funding for research into improving waste handling systems and
standardize measurements to allow better comparisons between systems........................... 62
Background............................................................................................................................ 62
Background on Animal Welfare........................................................................................................ 63
Swine............................................................................................................................................64
Layers........................................................................................................................................... 65
Pew Commission Conclusion on Restrictive Confinement Systems................................................ 65
Complete Animal Welfare Recommendations of the Pew Commission...........................................66
1. The animal agriculture industry should implement federal performance-based
standards to improve animal health and well-being..............................................................66
2. Implement better animal husbandry practices to improve public health
and animal well-being...........................................................................................................66
3. Phase out the most intensive and inhumane production practices within a decade
to reduce IFAP risks to public health and improve animal well-being................................. 67
4. Improve animal welfare practices and conditions that pose a threat to public
health and animal well-being................................................................................................ 67
5. Improve animal welfare research in support of cost-effective and reliable
ways to raise food animals while providing humane animal care........................................ 68
Background on the Impact on Rural Communities........................................................................... 68
Complete Rural Community Recommendations.............................................................................. 69
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 45

1. States, counties, and local governments should implement zoning and siting
guidance governing new IFAP operations that fairly and effectively evaluate
the suitability of a site for these types of facilities................................................................ 69
Background............................................................................................................................ 70
2. Implement policies to allow for a competitive marketplace in animal agriculture
to reduce the environmental and public health impacts of the IFAP..................................... 70
Background............................................................................................................................ 71
Summary........................................................................................................................................... 71
References......................................................................................................................................... 71
Endnotes............................................................................................................................................ 73

Every year, between 9 and 10 billion animals are raised and slaughtered in the United States for
food. Within the space of only a few decades, the livestock system in the United States has been
transformed from one in which most animals were raised in relatively small numbers on small- to
mid-size farms, to one in which incredibly large numbers of animals are now produced in concen-
trated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), or factory farms, that are owned or controlled by large
corporations. The impact of these industrial facilities has only recently been realized. Problems
associated with CAFOs include air pollution; the contamination of both inland and coastal waters
from animal waste; the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, stemming from the massive
nontherapeutic application of antibiotics to livestock; and the inhumane treatment of many farm
animals, which raises ethical considerations for the American public.
The Pew Charitable Trusts (Trusts), a Philadelphia-based public charity and its Pew Environment
Group, have a specific interest in how this industrial transformation has affected the environment,
public health, and ethics. After nearly a decade of internal planning, the Trusts established the
Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP) through a $2.6 million grant
to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for a Livable Future to inform and
guide the debate over the future of animal production in America.
Recognizing the interrelationship between how animals are raised and the impact on public health,
the environment, rural communities, and the actual treatment of the animals, the Commission’s
purpose was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the costs, benefits, and issues related to
CAFOs in America and to issue a set of thoughtful, consensus-based recommendations on mitigat-
ing the negative impacts of factory farms while simultaneously providing quality food products
at reasonable prices to American consumers. Its principal product was a final report to the nation
released in April 2008 that incorporated 24 basic recommendations, supported by sound research
and analysis.
The Commission was comprised of individuals from diverse backgrounds. The chair of the
Commission was former Kansas Governor and Archivist of the United States, John Carlin. The vice
chair was the Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Tennessee/Knoxville,
Dr. Michael Blackwell. Other members of the Commission included representatives of the medical
profession, and experts in nutrition, ethics, religion, production agriculture, public health, and the
meat industry.1
During the first 18 months, the Commission focused primarily on fact-finding and assessment,
including conducting site visits to farms and industrial animal production facilities, conducting
hearings in various parts of the country, and contracting with scientists and other technical experts
to produce up to eight specialized reports that helped inform the commissioners as well as the pub-
lic. Within the four primary areas of inquiry, the commission determined the critical issues deserv-
ing greater scrutiny and analysis, including those that required a specialized report.
The commission determined that separate reports authored by academic experts working as
teams would be needed in the areas of antibiotic resistance, animal welfare, environmental
impacts of large animal operations, the impact on human health, the impact on animal health, the
impact on rural communities, and the economics of industrial swine production to supplement our
46 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

investigations. In addition, the Commission and staff reviewed hundreds of pages of material sub-
mitted by a wide variety of stakeholders, received statements submitted by more than 500 people
who attended the two public meetings, and reviewed more than 170 peer-reviewed reports in the
areas of the Commission’s investigation.
In the final six months, the Commission refined its findings, and discussed and finalized ­policy
recommendations.

COMMISSION FINDINGS
The general finding of the Pew Commission was that the present model of industrial farm animal
production is not sustainable and presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health, an unac-
ceptable level of damage to the environment, is harmful to the animals housed in the most restric-
tive systems, and deters long-term economic activity in the nearby communities.
To solve the problems created by industrial farm animal production, 24 consensus recommenda-
tions were developed—12 on public health issues, 4 on environmental problems, 5 in the area of
animal welfare, 2 on rural communities, and 1 urging independent research on animal production at
universities. As is typical with the consensus process, each primary recommendation was developed
with as much detail as Commissioners could agree upon. Therefore, some primary recommenda-
tions have several components while others are relatively brief.
Of the 24 recommendations outlined in the Commission’s final report, 6 were highlighted in
the executive summary of the report and indicated a priority in each of the subject areas studied.
The top recommendations in each of the four years studied by the Commission—public health,
the environment, animal welfare, and rural communities—will be outlined in each section. The
full Pew Commission recommendations will follow the primary recommendation from each area
of inquiry.

BACKGROUND ON PUBLIC HEALTH

There can be an impact on human health through a traditional, extensive farming system or the
prevalent model today, the intensive system as represented in CAFOs. A significant difference
between extensive and intensive animal agriculture production is the large number of the same spe-
cies of animal in closely confined quarters, creating an atmosphere conducive to the rapid develop-
ment of pathogens and viruses.
In general, public health concerns associated with industrial farm animal production include
heightened risks of pathogens (disease and non-disease-causing) passed from animals to humans;
the emergence of microbes resistant to antibiotics and antimicrobials, due in large part to widespread
use of antimicrobials for nontherapeutic purposes; foodborne disease; worker health concerns; and
dispersed impacts on the adjacent community at large (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 11).
It has been estimated that of the 1400 documented human pathogens, approximately 64% are
zoonotic; that is, passed from animals to humans (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 13; Woolhouse and
Gowtage-Sequeria, 2005; Woolhouse et al., 2001). In addition to infectious disease and the risk of
pathogen transfer, the continuing cycling of viruses and other animal pathogens in large herds or
flocks increases opportunities for the generation of novel viruses through mutation or recombinant
actions that could result in more efficient human-to-human transmission.

PEW COMMISSION AND PUBLIC HEALTH RECOMMENDATIONS

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) estimates that approximately 70% of antimicrobials used
in the United States are used nontherapeutically in industrial farm animal production, including many
antibiotics such as penicillin and tetracycline that are used to treat human infections (Mellon et al.,
2001; Pew Commission, 2008 p. 13). Estimates of the cost of increased difficult-to-treat infections
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 47

range from $4 billion to $5 billion per year by the Institute of Medicine in 1998, to an estimated $26
billion in 2010 by the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics.
The Commission’s primary public health recommendation was to phase out and ban the nonther-
apeutic use of antimicrobials in food animal production (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 61). In addition,
it defined the terms therapeutic, nontherapeutic, and prophylactic use. Therapeutic use was defined
as use in the case of diagnosed microbial disease. In other words, antimicrobials were to be used to
treat sick animals. Nontherapeutic use was defined as any use in the absence of known or diagnosed
microbial disease. Prophylactic use was defined as the use of antimicrobials in healthy animals in
advance of an expected exposure to an infectious agent, or after an exposure but before the onset of
clinical disease (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 63). The Commission definitions would eliminate the
routine, daily, low-level use of antimicrobials for growth promotion or to compensate for the poor
animal husbandry conditions that are common in industrial farm animal production systems.

COMPLETE PUBLIC HEALTH RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE PEW COMMISSION
1. REsTRiCT THE UsE OF ANTimiCRObiAls iN FOOD ANimAl PRODUCTiON TO REDUCE
THE RisK OF ANTimiCRObiAl REsisTANCE TO mEDiCAllY imPORTANT ANTibiOTiCs.

• Phase out and ban the use of antimicrobials for nontherapeutic (i.e., growth promoting) use
in food animals.
• Immediately ban any new approvals of antimicrobials for nontherapeutic uses in food ani-
mals and retroactively investigate antimicrobials previously approved.
• Strengthen recommendations in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance #152 to be
enforceable by the FDA, in particular the investigation of previously approved animal drugs.
• Facilitate reduction in industrial farm animal production (IFAP) use of antibiotics and edu-
cate producers on how to raise food animals without using nontherapeutic antibiotics, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) extension service should be tasked to create and
expand programs that teach producers the husbandry methods and best practices necessary
to maintain the high level of efficiency and productivity they enjoy today.

Background
In 1986, Sweden banned the use of antibiotics in food animal production except for therapeutic pur-
poses and Denmark followed suit in 1998. A WHO (2002) report on the ban in Denmark found that

the termination of antimicrobial growth promoters in Denmark has dramatically reduced the food
animal reservoir of enterococci resistant to these growth promoters, and therefore reduced a reservoir
of genetic determinants (resistance genes) that encode antimicrobial resistance to several clinically
important antimicrobial agents in humans.

The report also determined that the overall health of the animals (mainly swine) was not affected
and the cost to producers was not significant. Effective January 1, 2006, the European Union also
banned the use of growth-promoting antibiotics (Meatnews.com, 2005).
In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Institute of Medicine (IOM) noted that anti-
biotic-resistant bacteria increase U.S. health care costs by a minimum of $4 billion to $5 billion
annually (IOM, 1998). A year later, the NAS estimated that eliminating the use of antimicrobials
as feed additives would cost each American consumer less than $5 to $10 per year, significantly
less than the additional health care costs attributable to antimicrobial resistance (NAS, 1999). In a
2007 analysis of the literature, another study found that a hospital stay was $6,000 to $10,000 more
expensive for a person infected with a resistant bacterium as opposed to an antibiotic-susceptible
infection (Cosgrove et al., 2005). The American Medical Association, American Public Health
48 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Association, National Association of County and City Health Officials, and National Campaign
for Sustainable Agriculture are among the more than 300 organizations representing health, con-
sumer, agricultural, environmental, humane, and other interests supporting enactment of legislation
to phase out nontherapeutic use of medically important antibiotics in farm animals and calling for
an immediate ban on antibiotics vital to human health.
The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2007 (PAMTA) amends the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to withdraw approvals for feed-additive use of seven specific classes
of antibiotics—penicillin, tetracycline, macrolide, lincosamide, treptogramin, aminoglycoside, and
sulfonamides—each of which contains antibiotics also used in human medicine (PAMTA, 2007a).
PAMTA provides for the automatic and immediate restriction of any other antibiotic used only in
animals if the drug becomes important in human medicine, unless FDA determines that such use will
not contribute to the development of resistance in microbes that have the potential to affect humans.
FDA Guidance #152 defines an antibiotic as potentially important in human medicine if FDA issues
an Investigational New Drug determination or receives a New Drug Application for the compound.
Most antibiotics currently used in animal production systems for nontherapeutic purposes were
approved before the FDA began considering resistance during the drug approval process. The FDA
has not established a schedule for reviewing existing approvals, although Guidance #152 notes the
importance of doing so. Specifically, Guidance #152 sets forth the responsibility of the FDA Center
for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), which is charged with regulating antimicrobials approved for use
in animals:

Prior to approving an antimicrobial new animal drug application, FDA must determine that the drug
is safe and effective for its intended use in the animal. The Agency must also determine that the anti-
microbial new animal drug intended for use in food-producing animals is safe with regard to human
health. (FDA-CVM, 2003)

The Guidance also says that

FDA believes that human exposure through the ingestion of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria from ani-
mal-derived foods represents the most significant pathway for human exposure to bacteria that has
emerged or been selected as a consequence of antimicrobial drug use in animals.

However, it goes on to warn that the

FDA’s guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibili-
ties. Instead, the guidance describes the Agency’s current thinking on the topic and should be viewed
only as guidance, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word
‘should’ in Agency guidance means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.
(FDA-CVM, 2003)

The Commission believes that the “recommendations” in Guidance #152 should be made legally
enforceable and applied retroactively to previously approved antimicrobials. Additional funding for
the FDA is required to achieve this recommendation (Pew Commission, 2008, pp. 61–63).

2. ClARiFY ANTimiCRObiAl DEFiNiTiONs TO PROViDE ClEAR EsTimATEs OF

UsE AND FACiliTATE ClEAR POliCiEs ON ANTimiCRObiAl UsE.

• The Commission defines as nontherapeutic any use of antimicrobials in food animals in

the absence of microbial disease or known (documented) microbial disease exposure; thus,
any use of the drug as an additive for growth promotion, feed efficiency, weight gain, rou-
tine disease prevention in the absence of documented exposure, or other routine purpose is
considered nontherapeutic.
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 49

• The Commission defines as therapeutic the use of antimicrobials in food animals with
diagnosed microbial disease.
• The Commission defines as prophylactic the use of antimicrobials in healthy animals in
advance of an expected exposure to an infectious agent or after such an exposure but before
onset of laboratory confirmed clinical disease as determined by a licensed professional.

Background
In 2000, the WHO, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and World
Organization for Animal Health (OIE, Fr. Office International des Épizooties) agreed on definitions
of antimicrobial use in animal agriculture based on a consensus (WHO, 2000).
Government agencies in the United States, including USDA and FDA, govern aspects of antimi-
crobial use in food animals but have varying definitions of such use. Consistent definitions should be
adopted for the use of all U.S. oversight groups that estimate types of antimicrobial use and for the
development of law and policy. Congress recently revived a bill to address the antimicrobial resistance
problem. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2007 (PAMTA) defines non-
therapeutic use as “any use of the drug as a feed or water additive for an animal in the absence of any
clinical sign of disease in the animal for growth promotion, feed efficiency, weight gain, routine dis-
ease prevention, or other routine purpose” (PAMTA, 2007a). If the bill becomes law, this will be the
legal definition of nontherapeutic use for all executive agencies and, therefore, legally enforceable.

3. ImPROVE mONiTORiNG AND REPORTiNG OF ANTimiCRObiAl UsE iN FOOD ANimAl PRODUCTiON TO

AssEss ACCURATElY THE QUANTiTY AND mETHODs OF ANTimiCRObiAl UsE iN ANimAl AGRiCUlTURE.

Require pharmaceutical companies that sell antimicrobials for use in food animals to provide a
calendar-year annual report of the quantity sold. Companies currently report antibiotic sales data on
an annual basis from the date of the drug’s approval, which makes data integration difficult. FDA
is responsible for oversight of the use of antimicrobials in food animals and needs consistent data
on which to report use.
Require reporting of antimicrobial use in food animal production, including antimicrobials added
to food and water, and incorporate the reported data in USDA’s National Animal Identification
System (NAIS). The FDA-CVM regulates feed additives but does not have the budget or personnel
to oversee their disposition after purchase. In addition, CVM and USDA are responsible for moni-
toring the use of prescribed antimicrobials in livestock production but rely on producers and vet-
erinarians to keep records of the antibiotics used and for what purpose. Institute better integration,
monitoring, and oversight by government agencies by developing a comprehensive plan to monitor
antimicrobial use in food animals, as called for in a 1999 National Research Council (NRC) report
(NAS, 1999). An integrated national database of antimicrobial resistance data and research would
greatly improve the organization, amount, and types of data collected and would facilitate neces-
sary policy changes by increasing data cohesion and accuracy. Further, priority should be given
to linking data on both antimicrobial use and resistance in the National Antimicrobial Resistance
Monitoring System (NARMS). This could be accomplished by full implementation of Priority
Action 5 of A Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, which calls for the
establishment of a monitoring system and the assessment of ways to collect and protect the confi-
dentiality of usage data (CDC/FDA/NIH, 1999).
Since USDA already provides antimicrobial use data in fruit and vegetable production, it seems
logical that usage information can be obtained from either agricultural producers or the pharmaceu-
tical industry without undue burden.

Background
There are no reliable data on antimicrobial use in U.S. food animal production. Rather, various
groups have reported estimates of use based on inconsistent standards. For example, in 2001, the
50 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

UCS estimated that 24.6 million pounds of antimicrobials were used per year for nontherapeutic
purposes (Mellon et al., 2001) in animal agriculture (only cattle, swine, and poultry), whereas the
Animal Health Institute (AHI) figure for the same year was only 21.8 million pounds for all animals
and uses (therapeutic and nontherapeutic) (AHI, 2002). These disparities make it difficult to get a
true picture of the state and extent of antimicrobial use and its relationship to antimicrobial resis-
tance in industrial farm animal production (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 64).

4. ImPROVE mONiTORiNG AND sURVEillANCE OF ANTimiCRObiAl REsisTANCE iN THE FOOD

sUPPlY, THE ENViRONmENT, AND ANimAl AND HUmAN POPUlATiONs iN ORDER TO REFiNE
KNOwlEDGE OF ANTimiCRObiAl REsisTANCE AND iTs imPACTs ON HUmAN HEAlTH.

• Integrate, expand, and increase the funding for current monitoring programs.
• Establish a permanent interdisciplinary oversight group with protection from political
pressure, as recommended in the 1999 NRC report The Use of Drugs in Food Animals:
Risks and Benefits. The group members should represent agencies involved in food animal
drug regulation (e.g., FDA, the CDC, USDA), similar to the Interagency Task Force (CDC/
FDA/NIH, 1999). In order to gather useful national data on antimicrobial resistance in
the United States, the group should review progress on data collection and reporting, and
should coordinate both the organisms tested and the regions where testing is concentrated,
in order to better integrate the data. Agency members should coordinate with each other
and with the NAIS to produce an annual report that includes integrated data on human
and animal antimicrobial use and resistance by region. Finally, the group should receive
appropriate funding from Congress to ensure transparency in funding as well as scientific
independence.
• Revise existing programs and develop a comprehensive plan to incorporate monitoring of
the farm environment (soils and plants) and nearby water supplies with the monitoring of
organisms in farm animals.
• Improve testing and tracking of antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) infections in health care
settings. Better tracking of antimicrobial-resistant infections will give health professionals
and policymakers a clearer picture of the role of AMR organisms in animal and human
health and will support decisions about the use of antimicrobials that are more effective.

Background
Monitoring and surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in the United States are covered by the
NARMS, a program run by the FDA in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
and USDA. CDC is responsible for monitoring resistance in humans, but other federal agencies
also conduct AMR research activities. For instance, USDA’s National Animal Health Monitoring
System (NAHMS) compiles food animal population statistics, animal health indicators, and anti-
microbial resistance data. USDA’s Collaboration in Animal Health and Food Safety Epidemiology
(CAHFSE) is a joint effort of the department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to monitor
bacteria that pose a food safety risk, including AMR bacteria. The United States Geological Survey
(USGS) studies the spread of AMR organisms in the environment. To achieve a comprehensive plan
for monitoring and responding to antimicrobial resistance in the food supply, the environment, and
animal and human populations, these agencies should work together to create an integrated plan
with independent oversight, and should upgrade from a passive form of monitoring to an active,
comprehensive, uniform, mandatory approach.
The U.S. and state geological surveys (Krapac et al., 2004; USGS, 2006) as well as several indepen-
dent groups (Batt, Snow et al., 2006; Centner, 2006; Peak, Knapp et al., 2007) have looked closely at
the spread of AMR organisms in the environment, specifically in waterways, presumably from runoff
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 51

or flooding. A recent study by the University of Georgia suggested that even chickens raised without
exposure to antibiotics were populated with resistant bacteria. The authors suggested that an incomplete
cleaning of the farm environment could have allowed resistant bacteria to persist and reinfect naïve
hosts (Idris, Lu et al., 2006; Smith, Drum et al., 2007). In Denmark, it took several years after the with-
drawal of antimicrobials for antimicrobial resistance to diminish in farm animal populations. These
experiences emphasize the importance of monitoring the environment for antimicrobial contamination
and responding with careful and comprehensive planning (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 65).

5. I NCREAsE VETERiNARY OVERsiGHT OF All ANTimiCRObiAl UsE iN FOOD ANimAl

PRODUCTiON TO PREVENT OVERUsE AND misUsE OF ANTimiCRObiAls.

• Restrict public access to agricultural sources of antimicrobials.

• Enforce restricted access to prescription drugs. By law, only a veterinarian may order the
extra label (i.e., nontherapeutic) use of a prescribed drug in animals, but, in fact, prescription
drugs are widely available for purchase online, directly from the distributors or pharmaceu-
tical companies, or in feed supply stores without a prescription. Without stricter require-
ments on the purchase of antimicrobials, extra label use of these drugs is possible and even
probable. For that reason, no antibiotics should be available for over-the-counter purchase.
• Enforce veterinary oversight and authorization of all decisions to use antimicrobials in
food animal production. The extra label drug use (ELDU) rule under the Animal Medicinal
Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA) permits veterinarians to go beyond label direc-
tions in using animal drugs and to use legally obtained human drugs in animals. However,
the rule does not permit ELDU in animal feed or to enhance production. ELDU is limited
to cases in which the health of the animal is threatened or in which suffering or death
may result from lack of treatment. Veterinarians should consider ELDU in food-producing
animals only when no approved drug is available that has the same active ingredient in
the required dosage form and concentration or that is clinically effective for the intended
use (1994). North Carolina State University, the University of California-Davis, and the
University of Florida run the Food Animal Residue Avoidance & Depletion Program
(FARAD) (www.farad.org/), which includes useful information for food animal veteri-
narians, including vetgram, which lists label information for all food animal drugs. To be
effective, AMDUCA and ELDU must be enforced. In addition, as technology allows, the
FDA-CVM should compel veterinarians to submit prescription and treatment information
on farm animals to a national database to allow better tracking of antibiotic use as well as
better oversight by veterinarians. Veterinary education for food animal production should
teach prescription laws and reporting requirements.
• Encourage veterinary consultation in these decisions. AMDUCA requires the veterinar-
ian to properly label drugs used in a manner inconsistent with the labeling (i.e., extra
label) and to give the livestock owner complete instructions about proper use of the drug.
Further, ELDU must take place in the context of a valid, current veterinarian-client-patient
relationship—the veterinarian must have sufficient knowledge of the animal to make a pre-
liminary diagnosis that will determine the intended use of the drugs. The producer should
be encouraged to work with the veterinarian both to ensure the health of the animal and
to conform to antibiotic requirements. For example, the National Pork Board Pork Quality
Assurance program encourages consultation with veterinarians to maintain a comprehen-
sive herd health program (NPB, 2005).

Background
Presenters at a 2003 NRC workshop concluded that unlike human use of antibiotics, nonthera-
peutic uses in animals typically do not require a prescription (certain antimicrobials are sold over
52 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

the counter and widely used for purposes or administered in ways not described on the label)
(Anderson et al., 2003). Before AMDUCA, veterinarians were not legally permitted to use an
animal drug in any way except as indicated on the label. After the passage of AMDUCA, veteri-
narians gained the right to prescribe and dispense drugs for “extra label” use, but FDA limits such
use to protect public health (1994). ELDU occurs when the drug’s actual or intended use is not
in accordance with the approved labeling. For instance, ELDU refers to administration of a drug
for a species not listed on the label; for an indication, disease, or other condition not on the label;
at a dosage level or frequency not on the label; or by a route of administration not on the label.
Over-the-counter sale of antimicrobials opens the door to the nontherapeutic, unregulated use of
antibiotics in farm animals (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 66).

6. ImPlEmENT A DisEAsE-mONiTORiNG PROGRAm AND A FUllY iNTEGRATED

AND RObUsT NATiONAl DATAbAsE FOR FOOD ANimAls TO AllOw 48-HOUR
TRACE-bACK THROUGH PHAsEs OF THEiR PRODUCTiON.

• Implement a tracking system for animals as individuals or units from birth until consump-
tion, including movement, illnesses, breeding, feeding practices, slaughter condition and
location, and point of sale. Use the same numbering system as for USDA’s NAIS (see pre-
vious text), but expand it to provide more information to appropriate users (NAIS tracks
animals based only on their movement).
• Require federal oversight of all aspects of this tracking system, with stringent protec-
tions for producers against lawsuits. The tracking arm of the NAIS, which has not yet
been implemented, is designed to be administered by private industry in collaboration
with state governments. NAIS has garnered support from both, but the program should be
expanded significantly and monitored by a separate federal agency to enhance confidenti-
ality for producers. The British Cattle Movement Service (www.bcms.gov.uk) could serve
as a model for this system.
• Require registration of premises and animals by 2009 and implement animal tracking by
2010. USDA’s aphis has created a voluntary animal ID system in collaboration with the
farm animal industry, so implementation of a mandatory federal system should be feasible
within a relatively short time.
• Allocate special funding to small farms to facilitate their participation in the national
tracking system, which would have a much greater financial impact on them, particu-
larly the costs of the identification method (e.g., ear tag, microchip, retinal scan). Such
funding should be made available concurrent with the announcement of mandatory
registration.

Background
In May 2005, aphis began implementing an animal tracking system, the NAIS (USDA, aphis 2006),
which will track premises and 27 species of animals (including cattle, goats, sheep, swine, poultry,
deer, and elk). Data are linked to several databases run by private technology companies, while
USDA shops for a technology company with data warehousing expertise to run the full national
database in the future. The United Kingdom uses a similar database for its Cattle Tracing System
(Doe and Fra, 2001).
NAIS registration is voluntary at the time of this writing, and the Bush administration announced
on November 22, 2006, that it would not require it of producers. The major industry concerns are
about trust and confidentiality, says John Clifford, deputy administrator for aphis veterinary ser-
vices. However, proposals to make registration mandatory have been floated by USDA; the depart-
ment has officially stated that, “If the marketplace, along with State and Federal identification
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 53

programs, does not provide adequate incentives for achieving complete participation, USDA may
be required to implement regulations” (USDA, 2006).
The goal of the NAIS is a 48-hour trace-back to identify exposures because the 48-hour period is
vital to containing the spread of infection (USDA, 2005). USDA advertises the NAIS as a “valuable
tool for other ‘non-NAIS’ purposes—such as animal management, genetic improvement, and mar-
keting opportunities,” and notes that producers could improve the quality of their product and thus
increase sales using the tracking. Many industry groups support the NAIS for these reasons, but
small producers worry about the costs, oversight of data collection, and maintenance (Western
Organization of Resource Councils, May 2006).
The first two phases of the NAIS call for the registration of premises and individual animals
using a U.S. Animal Identification Number (USAIN). According to the USDA,

[t]he US Animal Identification Number (USAIN) will evolve into the sole national numbering sys-
tem for the official identification of individual animals in the United States. The USAIN follows
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard for Radio Frequency [tracking]
of Animals and can thus be encoded in an ISO transponder or printed on a visual tag. (USDA,
aphis 2006)

The Wisconsin Livestock ID Consortium developed this USAIN, which has 15 digits, the first
three of which are the country code (840 for the United States). The final phase will be the animal
tracking phase (Pew Commission, 2008, pp. 67–68).

7. FUllY ENFORCE CURRENT FEDERAl AND sTATE ENViRONmENTAl EXPOsURE REGUlATiONs

AND lEGislATiON, AND iNCREAsE mONiTORiNG OF THE POssiblE PUbliC HEAlTH EFFECTs
OF IFAP ON PEOPlE wHO liVE AND wORK iN OR NEAR THEsE OPERATiONs.

• Because IFAP workers—farmers, caretakers, processing plant workers, veterinarians, fed-

eral, state, and private emergency response personnel, and animal diagnostic laboratory
personnel—are exposed to and may be infected by zoonotic, novel, or other infectious
agents, they should be a priority target population for heightened monitoring, annual influ-
enza vaccines, and training in the use of personal protective equipment. IFAP workers who
have the highest risk of exposure to a novel virus or other infectious agent should be prior-
ity targets for health information and education, pandemic vaccines, and antiviral drugs.
• IFAP employers and responsible health departments need to coordinate the monitoring
and tracking of all IFAP facility employees to document disease outbreaks and prevent the
spread of a novel zoonotic disease.
• Occupational health and safety programs, including information about risks to health and
information about resources, should be more widely available to IFAP workers.
• Occupational safety and health information must also be disseminated in ways that allow
people with little or no education or English proficiency to understand their risks and why
precautions must be taken. Because of the well-documented health and safety risks among
IFAP workers, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration should develop health
and safety standards for IFAP facilities as allowable by law.
• Current legislation and regulations concerning surveillance and health and safety ­programs
should be implemented and should prioritize IFAP workers.

Background
In most jurisdictions, few, if any, restrictions on IFAP facilities address the health of IFAP workers
or the public. Localities are therefore often unprepared to properly deal with IFAP impacts on local
services and the health of people in the community (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 69).
54 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

8. INCREAsE REsEARCH ON THE PUbliC HEAlTH EFFECTs OF IFAP ON PEOPlE

liViNG AND wORKiNG ON OR NEAR THEsE OPERATiONs, AND iNCORPORATE
THE FiNDiNGs iNTO A NEw sYsTEm FOR siTiNG AND REGUlATiNG IFAP.

• Support research to characterize IFAP air emissions and exposures from the handling and
distribution of manure on fields—including irritant gases (ammonia and hydrogen sul-
fide, at a minimum), bioaerosols (endotoxin, at a minimum), and respirable particulates—
for epidemiological studies of exposed communities near IFAP facilities. Such research
should include characterization of mixed exposures, studies of particulates in rural areas,
and standardization and harmonization of exposure assessment methods and instrumenta-
tion to the degree possible.
• Support research to identify and validate the most applicable dispersion models for IFAP
facilities and their manure emissions. Such modeling research must take into account mul-
tiple IFAP facilities and their manure management plans in a given area, meteorological
conditions, and chemical transformation of pollutants, and should be evaluated with pre-
diction error determined through comparison of predicted values with actual monitoring
data. Such models would be useful to state and federal regulatory agencies to determine
the results of best management practices, to assess health impacts on exposed populations,
and to model setback distances before the construction of new facilities. There is a further
need for models that enable evaluation of concentration/exposure scenarios after an event
that triggers asthma episodes or nuisance complaints.
• Support research on the respiratory health and function of populations that live near IFAP
facilities, including children and sensitive individuals. Such studies are powerful epide-
miological approaches to assess the impact of air pollutants on respiratory health and must
include appropriate exposure assessments, exposure modeling, and use of time-activity
patterns with personal exposure monitoring to better calibrate modeling of exposures.
Exposure assessment data need to be linked with measures of respiratory health outcome
and function data, including standardized assessment of respiratory symptoms and lung
function, assessment of allergic/immunological markers of response, and measurement of
markers of inflammation, including the use of noninvasive approaches such as tear fluid,
nasal lavage, and exhaled breath condensate.
• Support systematic and sustained studies of ecosystem health near IFAP facilities, includ-
ing toxicologic, infectious, and chemical assessments, to better assess the fate and transport
of toxicologic, infectious, and chemical agents that may adversely affect human health.
Systematic monitoring programs should be instituted to assess private well water quality in
high-risk areas, supplemented by biomonitoring programs to assess actual exposure doses
from water sources.

Background
While there is an increasing amount of research already taking place on IFAP’s impacts on the
people who work and live on or near these facilities, there is a need to define more fully the extent
to which IFAP poses a threat to those populations. There is clear epidemiological evidence that
IFAP facilities are associated with increased asthma risk among those living nearby, but there is a
need to develop and understand exposure and health outcome relationships. These topics should be
addressed by scientific research (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 69).

9. STRENGTHEN THE RElATiONsHiPs bETwEEN PHYsiCiANs, VETERiNARiANs, AND PUbliC

HEAlTH PROFEssiONAls TO DEAl wiTH POssiblE IFAP RisKs TO PUbliC HEAlTH.

• To understand the cross-species spread of disease, expand and increase funding for dual
veterinary/public health degree programs.
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 55

• Fund and implement federal and state training programs to increase the number of practic-
ing food animal veterinarians (2007b).
• Initiate and expand federal coordination between Health and Human Services (HHS), FDA,
CDC, and USDA to better anticipate, detect, and deal with zoonotic disease. NARMS is
not extensive enough to be effective for outbreak detection; it serves a general monitoring
function. Include all the data from the various federal agencies in the IFAP clearinghouse
(outlined among the environmental recommendations) for use by a newly created Food
Safety Administration (Recommendation 10) and the states.
• Promote international coordination on zoonotic diseases and food safety. As an increas-
ing amount of U.S. food is imported, it is vital to hold this food to the same standards as
domestically produced food.
• Provide more training through land-grant universities and schools of public health to pro-
ducers, community health workers, health professionals, and other appropriate personnel
to promote detection of disease as a first line of defense against emerging zoonotic diseases
and other IFAP-related occupational health and safety outcomes.

Background
These three groups of health professionals (physicians, veterinarians, and public health profession-
als) have already begun to collaborate, and such collaboration should be promoted and extended
as quickly as possible to protect the public’s health as well as that of the food animal population.
The American Medical Association and American Veterinary Medical Association’s One Health
Initiative is a very good beginning, and the Commission recommends the following to further
extend this collaboration (Pew Commission, 2008, p.71).

10. CREATE A FOOD SAFETY ADmiNisTRATiON THAT COmbiNEs THE FOOD iNsPECTiON AND
sAFETY REsPONsibiliTiEs OF THE FEDERAl GOVERNmENT, USDA, FDA, EPA, AND OTHER
FEDERAl AGENCiEs iNTO ONE AGENCY TO imPROVE THE sAFETY OF THE U.S. FOOD sUPPlY.

Background
The current system to ensure the safety of U.S. food is disjointed and dysfunctional; for example,
the FDA regulates meatless frozen pizza whereas the USDA has jurisdiction over frozen pizza with
meat. This fractured system has failed to ensure food safety, and a solution requires a thorough
national debate about how the most effective and efficient food safety agency would be constructed
(Pew Commission, 2008, p. 71).

11. DEVElOP A FlEXiblE, RisK-bAsED sYsTEm FOR FOOD sAFETY FROm FARm-TO-FORK
TO imPROVE THE sAFETY OF ANimAl PROTEiN PRODUCED bY IFAP FACiliTiEs.

• Any risk-based, farm-to-fork food safety system must allow for size differences among
production systems—a “one-size-fits-all” system will not be appropriate for all operations.
The system must be flexible enough for small and local producers to get their products to
the marketplace.
• Attack food safety issues at their source, instead of trying to fix a problem after it has
occurred, by instituting better sanitary and health practices at the farm level. Ranch operat-
ing plans may provide one approach to on-farm food safety; the FDA’s 2004 proposed rule
for the prevention of Salmonella enteritidis in shell eggs is another example (http://www.
fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/EggSafety/EggSafetyActionPlan/
ucm110169.htm).
• Ensure that diagnostic tools are sensitive and specific and are continuously evaluated to
detect newly emerging variants of microbial agents of food origin.
56 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

• Make resources available through competitive grants to encourage the development of

practical but rigorous monitoring systems and rapid diagnostic tools. Provide resources
for the application of newly identified or developed technologies and processes and for the
training of inspectors and quality control staff of facilities.
• Introduce greater transparency in feed ingredients. Often producers do not even know what
additives they are feeding the animals because the feed arrives premixed from the integra-
tor. One option would be to extend certain provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
to the farm.
• Encourage the food animal production industry (contractors, producers, and integrators)
to commit to finding ways to minimize the risk of outbreaks of zoonotic disease and other
IFAP-related public health threats to vulnerable communities, such as those where IFAP
facilities are the most concentrated and where local citizens are least able to protect their
rights (e.g., lower-income or minority areas).
• Include both imported and domestically produced foods of animal origin in the enhanced
monitoring systems.

Background
Recent foodborne illness outbreaks and meat recalls have called into question the reliability of our system
for ensuring the safety of domestic and imported meat. Fiat facilities can have a variety of effects on public
health if precautions are not taken to protect the health of their food animals. Livestock production sys-
tems must be assessed for vulnerabilities beyond the naturally occurring disease agents. The U.S. produc-
tion of food has been a model for the world, but a number of countries have now instituted better practices.
The food production system is one of our most vulnerable critical infrastructure systems and requires
preparation and protection from possible domestic or foreign bioterrorism. Confidence in the safety of our
food supply must be maintained and, in some cases, restored (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 72).

12. I mPROVE THE sAFETY OF OUR FOOD sUPPlY AND REDUCE UsE OF
ANTimiCRObiAls bY mORE AGGREssiVElY miTiGATiNG PRODUCTiON DisEAsEs
(DisORDERs AssOCiATED wiTH IFAP mANAGEmENT AND bREEDiNG).
• More attention should be given to antimicrobial resistance and other diseases on the farm.
Too often attempts are made to address the effects of production diseases after they arise
(at processing), rather than preventing them from occurring in the first place.
• Research into systems that minimize production diseases should be expanded, imple-
mented, and advocated by the state and the federal governments.

Background
Production diseases are diseases that, although present in nature, become more prevalent because
of certain production practices. As production systems increase the number of animals in the same
space, preventive health care strategies must be developed in parallel in order to minimize the risks
of production-related diseases (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 73).

BACKGROUND ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

All types of animal agriculture operations present potential environmental problems. However, the
structure of intensive animal production operations presents a larger problem. In fact, the storage
and disposal of waste presents the single most important and difficult environmental problem facing
concentrated animal feeding operations.
The USDA estimates that all livestock and poultry operations in the United States produce an
estimated 500 billion tons of manure annually compared to the EPA estimate of 150 million tons
of human waste produced annually (EPA, 2007b). The difference is that animal feces and urine are
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 57

not treated to remove pathogens and contaminants before being applied to cropland, whereas human
waste is treated by a wastewater treatment system before being released into the environment.
CAFOs are regulated by the Clean Water Act, where operations of a certain size and those that
may possibly discharge require a permit. However, species promotion groups and a general farm
organization have challenged the EPA’s authority to regulate CAFOs under that act. At the time of
this writing, that suit was still pending.
Because of the high volume of concentrated waste, disposal on cropland surrounding these oper-
ations can cause problems with phosphorus buildup in the soil and nitrogen runoff in surface waters
and into groundwater. Agricultural chemicals and pharmaceuticals used in these operations have
also been found in the soil, groundwater, and surface water.
While there is a difference in greenhouse gas emissions between intensive and extensive opera-
tions, the EPA estimates that 7.4% of greenhouse gas emissions are from agriculture (EPA, 2007a).

CONCLUSION OF PEW COMMISSION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

AND CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
While the number of farms raising animals has declined, the number of animals raised as food
remained somewhat constant over the last 50 years, requiring larger and larger numbers of animals
to be raised in each operation. Large operations have been able to accomplish this with some gains
in production efficiency.
While these large operations have gained some efficiency, the downside of CAFO practices is
that they have produced an expanding array of harmful environmental effects, including negative
impacts on soil, water, and the air. Those effects impose a cost on society that is not reflected in the
retail price of meat; therefore, those costs are called externalized costs.
CAFOs present a major waste management problem with the volume being so large that disposal
can be impractical and environmentally damaging.
The Pew Commission believed that to protect against further environmental degradation,
management practices must be improved, protective zoning changes must be made, and improved
monitoring and enforcement of CAFO regulations are needed (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 29).

COMPLETE ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE PEW COMMISSION
1. ImPROVE ENFORCEmENT OF EXisTiNG FEDERAl, sTATE, AND lOCAl IFAP FACiliTY
REGUlATiONs TO imPROVE THE siTiNG OF IFAP FACiliTiEs AND PROTECT THE
HEAlTH OF THOsE wHO liVE NEAR AND DOwNsTREAm FROm THEm.

• Enforce all provisions of the Clean Water Act 14 and the Clean Air Act 15 that pertain to
IFAP.
• Provide adequate mandatory federal funding to states to enable them to hire more trained
inspectors, collect data, monitor farms more closely, educate producers on proper manure
handling techniques, write Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPS), and
enforce IFAP regulations (e.g., NRCS, EPA Section 106 grants, SBA loans).
• States should enforce federal and state permits quickly, equitably, and robustly. A lack of
funding and political will often inhibits the ability of states to adequately enforce existing
federal and state IFAP (currently CAFO) regulations. Often, states must rely on general fund
appropriations to fund IFAP (CAFO) monitoring and rule enforcement. Dedicated mandatory
funding would improve this situation, and additional funding for monitoring and enforcement
could be realized if permitting fee funds were dedicated to monitoring and enforcement.
• States should implement robust inspection regimes that are designed to deter IFAP facil-
ity operators from ignoring pollution rules. Often, no state-sanctioned official visits an
58 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

IFAP facility unless there is a complaint, and then it may be too late to document or fix the
problem. Each state should set a minimum inspection schedule (at least once a year), with
special attention to repeat violators (Kelly, 2007).
• State environmental protection agencies, rather than state agricultural agencies, should be
charged with regulating IFAP waste. This would prevent the conflict of interest that arises
when a state agency charged with promoting agriculture is also regulating it (Washington
State Department of Ecology, 2006). While environmental protection agencies may not
have expertise with food animals, they are generally better equipped than state agriculture
agencies to deal with waste disposal because they regulate many other types of waste dis-
posal. Unfortunately, several states are transferring the regulation of IFAP facilities from
the department of environment to their department of agriculture.
• The EPA should develop a standardized approach for regulating air pollution from IFAP
facilities. IFAP air emissions—including pollutants such as particulate matter, hydrogen
sulfide, ammonia, methane, and volatile gases—are unregulated at the federal level.
• Clarify the definition of the types of waste handling systems and number of animals that
constitute a regulated IFAP facility (CAFO) in order to bring a greater proportion of the
waste from IFAP facilities under regulation. Under currently proposed EPA rules, only 49
to 60% of IFAP waste qualifies for federal regulation (EPA, 2003).
• The federal government should develop criteria for allowable levels of animal density and
appropriate waste management methods that are compatible with protecting watershed,
air shed, soil, and aquifers by adjusting for relevant hydrologic and geologic factors. States
should use these criteria to permit and site IFAP operations.
• Once criteria are established and implemented, EPA should monitor IFAP’s effects on
entire watersheds, not just on a per farm basis, since IFAP can have a cumulative effect on
the health of a watershed.
• Grant permits only to new IFAP facilities that comply with local, state, and federal
regulations.
• Require existing IFAP facilities to comply and shut down those that cannot or do not.
• The federal and state governments should increase the number of IFAP operations (cur-
rently restricted to EPA-defined CAFOs) to be regulated under federal and state law
(NMPS, effluent restrictions, national pollutant discharge elimination system [NPES] per-
mits) and provide robust financial and technical support to smaller producers included
in the expanded IFAP (CAFO) definition to help them comply with these regulations.
Under the current definition of a CAFO, only 5% of animal feeding operations (AFOs) are
CAFOs, yet they raise 40% of U.S. livestock. Only approximately 30% (4000) of the 5%
have federal permits (Copeland, 2006). If the current final rule (1000 animal units, or au)
were lowered to the original rule proposed in 2000, which would regulate CAFOs between
300 and 999 au or a 500-animal threshold (EPA, 2003), 64 to 72% more waste would be
covered under the federal permitting process.
• Require operations that do not obtain a permit to prove they are not discharging waste into
the environment. Test wells for groundwater monitoring, and require surface water moni-
toring for those who wish to opt out of obtaining a permit. This would expand the number
of AFOs subject to regulation. Currently, many operations that meet IFAP facility (CAFO)
size thresholds do not obtain permits or fall outside state and federal regulation because they
claim they do not discharge. Claiming no discharge exempts IFAP facilities from federal
regulation, although they are often still subject to state laws, which vary greatly from state
to state (as noted in the National Conference of State Legislatures study [NCSL, 2008]).

Background
Too few IFAP operations are monitored, regulated, or even inspected on a regular basis. It is imper-
ative that all levels of government thoroughly enforce existing IFAP laws for all IFAP facilities.
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 59

Funding should be increased to enable federal and state authorities to enforce IFAP regulations in
order to reduce the number of large operations negatively affecting the soil, air, and water (Pew
Commission, 2008, p. 77).

2. DEVElOP AND imPlEmENT A NEw sYsTEm TO DEAl wiTH FARm wAsTE (THAT will REPlACE THE
iNFlEXiblE AND bROKEN sYsTEm THAT EXisTs TODAY) TO PROTECT AmERiCANs FROm THE ADVERsE
ENViRONmENTAl AND HUmAN HEAlTH HAZARDs OF imPROPERlY HANDlED IFAP wAsTE.

• Congress and the federal government should work together to formulate laws and regu-
lations outlining baseline waste handling standards for IFAP facilities. These standards
would address the minimum level of mandatory IFAP facility regulation as well as which
regulations states must enforce to prevent IFAP facilities from polluting the land, air, and
water. States could choose to implement regulations that are more stringent if they con-
sidered them necessary. Our diminishing land capacity for producing food animals, com-
bined with dwindling freshwater supplies, escalating energy costs, nutrient overloading of
soil, and increased antibiotic resistance, will result in a crisis unless new laws and regula-
tions go into effect in a timely fashion. This process must begin immediately and be fully
implemented within 10 years.
• Address site-specific permits for the operation of all IFAP facilities and include the moni-
toring of air, water, and soil total maximum daily loads (TMDLs),16 site specific NMPS,17
comprehensive nutrient management plans (CMPs),18 inspections, data collection, and self
reporting to the clearinghouse (see fifth item under Recommendation 3 in this section).
• Require the use of environmentally sound treatment technologies for waste management
(without specifying a particular technology that might not be appropriate for all conditions).
• Mandate shared responsibility and liability for the disposal of IFAP waste between inte-
grators and producers proportional to their control over the operation (instead of this bur-
den being solely the responsibility of the producer [Arteaga, 2001]).
• Include baseline federal zoning guidelines that set out a framework for states. Require a
pre-permit/construction environmental impact study. Such a requirement would not pre-
vent states and counties from enacting their own, more comprehensive, zoning laws if nec-
essary (see Recommendation 1 under Competition and Community Impacts).
• Establish mechanisms for community involvement to provide neighbors of IFAP facilities
opportunities to review and comment on proposed facilities, and allow them to take action
in cases where federal or state regulations have been violated in the absence of enforce-
ment of those laws by the appropriate authority. Individuals who have had their private
property contaminated through no fault of their own must have access to the courts to
obtain redress.
• Ensure that all types of IFAP waste (e.g., dry litter, wet waste) are covered by regulations
(EPA, 2003).
• Establish standards that protect people, animals, and the environment from the effects of
IFAP waste on and off the operation’s property (Arteaga, 2001; EPA, 2003; Schiffman,
Studwell et al., 2005; Sigurdarson and Kline, 2006; Stolz, Perera et al., 2007).
• Phase out the use of lagoon and spray systems in areas that cannot sustain their use (e.g.,
fragile watersheds, floodplains, certain geologic formations, areas prone to disruptive
weather patterns).
• Require new and expanding IFAP facilities in vulnerable areas to use primary, secondary,
and tertiary treatment of animal waste (similar to the treatment associated with human
waste) until lagoon and spray systems can be replaced by safe and effective alternative
technologies.
• Require minimal water use in alternative systems to protect the nation’s dwindling fresh-
water resources, balanced with the system’s effect on air and soil quality. Liquid manure
60 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

handling systems should be used only if another system is not feasible or would have greater
environmental impact than a liquid system. The sustainability of alternative systems in rela-
tion to water resources and carbon use should be a major focus during their development.
• Prohibit the installation of new liquid manure handling systems and phase out their use on
existing operations as technology allows.
• Require states to implement a robust inspection regime that combines adequate funding for
annual inspections with additional risk-based inspections where necessary. It is important that
all IFAP facilities be inspected on a regular basis to ensure compliance with state and federal
waste management regulations. Additionally, some IFAP facilities may need special attention
because of the type of manure handling system in use, the facility’s age, its size, or its location.
These high-risk operations should be inspected more often than lower-risk operations.

Background
Most animal production facilities in the United States and increasingly in the world have become
highly specialized manufacturing endeavors and should be viewed as such. The regulatory system
for oversight of IFAP facilities is flawed and inadequate to deal with the level and concentration of
waste produced by current food animal production systems, which were not well understood or even
foreseen when the laws were written. A new system of laws and regulations that applies specifically
to modern IFAP methods is needed.
IFAP facilities have become more concentrated in certain geographic areas. New regulations
must address the zoning and siting of IFAP facilities, particularly with regard to the topography,
demographics, and climate of the suggested region. They must also take into account an individual’s
right to property free from pollution caused by neighboring IFAP facilities. IFAP facility owners
and integrators do not have a right to pollute their neighbors’ land. Property owners or tenants must
have the right to take legal action or petition the government to do so on their behalf if their property
is polluted by a neighboring IFAP facility.
Waste from IFAP facilities contains both desirable and undesirable by-products. Desirable by-
products include nutrients that, when applied in appropriate amounts, can enhance production of
food crops and biomass to produce energy. Undesirable components include excess pathogenic
bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, viruses, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, and other poten-
tially problematic organic and inorganic compounds. New IFAP laws and regulations must man-
date development of sustainable waste handling and treatment systems that can use the beneficial
components and render the less desirable components benign. These new laws should not mandate
specific systems for producers; rather they should set discharge standards that can be met using a
variety of systems that accommodate the local climate and geography.
Congress should work with the EPA, USDA, and FDA to establish a clear and consistent defini-
tion of which IFAP facilities should be regulated and to develop regulations (Pew Commission,
2008, pp. 77–79).

3. INCREAsE AND imPROVE mONiTORiNG AND REsEARCH OF FARm wAsTE TO HAsTEN THE
DEVElOPmENT OF NEw AND iNNOVATiVE sYsTEms TO DEAl wiTH IFAP wAsTE AND
TO bETTER OUR UNDERsTANDiNG OF wHAT is HAPPENiNG wiTH IFAP TODAY.

• All IFAP facilities should have, at a minimum, a nutrient management plan (NMP) for the
disposal of manure. An NMP describes appropriate methods for the handling and disposal
of manure and for its application to fields. The plan should also include records of the
method and timing of manure disposal.
• State and federal governments should provide funds through state regulatory agencies
and the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to help producers write and
implement NMPs.
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 61

• The EPA should set federal minimum standards for the extent of NMPs and specify
what monitoring data should be kept.
• Allow the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to (1) fund the writing of
NMPs to expedite their implementation and (2) provide business plans for alternative
systems to equalize access to government funds for non-IFAP and IFAP (CAFO)-style
production.
• The federal, state, and local governments should begin collecting data on air emissions,
ground and surface water emissions, soil emissions, and health outcomes (e.g., cardiovas-
cular disease, heart disease, injuries, and allergies) for people who live near IFAP facilities
and for IFAP workers. These data should be tabulated and combined with existing data in
a national IFAP data clearinghouse that will enable the EPA and other agencies to keep
track of air, water, and land emissions from IFAP facilities and evaluate the public health
implications of these emissions. The EPA and other state and federal agencies should use
these comprehensive data both to support independent research and to better regulate IFAP
facilities. Currently, FDA, EPA, and other federal agencies each keep extensive records for
different industries as a way to track changes and regulate each industry. The clearinghouse
would consolidate data from around the country, thereby giving producers the chance to
improve their operation by providing access to information about better technologies and
improved waste systems. It would also allow researchers, regulators, and policymakers to
evaluate changing environmental and public health impacts of agriculture and adjust regu-
lations accordingly. The EPA, FDA, and USDA should take the following actions:
• Add data collected on farm waste handling systems to the clearinghouse for use in
assessing and evaluating the sustainability of animal production models and farm
waste handling systems by region.
• Link data to their collection location to facilitate regional comparisons, given different
environmental and geological conditions.
• Implement data protection procedures to ensure that only authorized agencies and per-
sonnel can access personal information (e.g., information that could be used by identity
thieves) for official purposes.
• Include comprehensive USDA Agriculture Census data in the national clearinghouse
to provide a context for the data and thus improve their utility.
• Include data on individual violations of state and federal IFAP facility (CAFO) regu-
lations in the public portion of the national clearinghouse. Currently, it is difficult to
determine compliance with IFAP (CAFO) laws because states may or may not keep
good records of violations and may make them extremely difficult for the public to
access (NASDA, 2001).
• Expand our understanding of how to deal with concentrated IFAP waste, and the health
and environmental effects of this waste through more diversely funded and well-coor-
dinated research, as well as to move the United States toward more sustainable systems
for dealing with farm waste. National standards for alternative waste systems are needed
to guide development of improvements to existing waste handling systems as well as the
development of alternative/new waste handling systems.
• Require states to report basic data (general location, number of animals, NMP, etc.) on
all IFAP facilities in the public portion of the national clearinghouse.
• Federal and state governments should fund research into alternative systems to replace
existing, insufficient waste handling systems, similar to the recent research done at
North Carolina State University. They should also increase funding for research on the
effects of IFAP waste on public health, the environment, and animal welfare.
• Establish a national clearinghouse for data on alternative systems. The clearing-
house would be the repository of regionally and topographically significant data on
62 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

e­ conomic performance, environmental performance (air, water, and soil), and overall
sustainability for potentially useful alternative waste handling systems.
• Improve and standardize research methods for data collection and analysis for the
clearinghouse. Standardized methods would allow states and the federal government
to compare regionally relevant data in the clearinghouse and facilitate evaluation of
new waste handling systems.
• Increase funding for research to effectively assess and improve the economic perfor-
mance, energy balance, risk assessment, and environmental sustainability of alterna-
tive waste handling systems.
• Increase funding for research focused on comprehensive systems to deal with waste,
rather than those focused on one process to deal with one aspect of waste (such as
using a digester to reduce volume, which does little to reduce the levels of certain toxic
components). Dealing with only one component of waste may have the unintended
consequence of causing greater harm to the environment.
• Expand the type and number of entities researching farm waste handling by expanding
the public funding of research at both land grant and non-land-grant institutions, and other
research entities. In addition, transparency of funding source in agricultural research
should be standard.

Background
A robust monitoring system should be instituted to improve knowledge about IFAP facilities’ cur-
rent waste management practices as the basis for development of cleaner and safer methods of food
animal production (Pew Commission, 2008, pp. 79–81).

4. INCREAsE FUNDiNG FOR REsEARCH iNTO imPROViNG wAsTE HANDliNG sYsTEms AND
sTANDARDiZE mEAsUREmENTs TO AllOw bETTER COmPARisONs bETwEEN sYsTEms.

• Develop a central repository for information on how to best facilitate rapid adoption of
new air and water pollution reduction technologies that currently exist or are under devel-
opment across the country. Research to develop effective means of assistance to pay for
them (EQIP should be part of this) should be a component of this repository. (Examples of
technologies include biofilters, buffer strips, dehydration, injection, digesters, and reduced
feed wastage.)
• Increase funding for the creation and expansion of programs for implementing improved
husbandry and technology practices on currently existing facilities including funding con-
versions to alternative farming practices. (Examples of such programs include, but are
not limited to EQIP, cooperative extension, NRCs, cost share, loans, grants, and acceler-
ated capital depreciation.) Sign-up and application information for these types of programs
should be included in the clearinghouse so that producers only have to go to one place to
get information and sign up for a program. A dollar amount cap should be placed on the
cost-share program to prevent large-scale operators from using the program to externalize
their costs. These funds should not be used for the physical construction of new facilities.
• Target increased assistance and information to small producers who are least able to afford
implementation of new practices and deal with increased regulation, but still have the
potential to pollute. Air emission technologies, such as biofilters, that are used in other
parts of the world should be considered for use in IFAPs in the United States.

Background
Data from research into alternative systems should be linked to the IFAP information clearinghouse
to facilitate and expedite access and use. Greater financial and technical assistance must be pro-
vided to those who wish to implement alternative systems (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 81).
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 63

BACKGROUND ON ANIMAL WELFARE

In 1964, Ruth Harrison published the landmark book, Animal Machines, in the United Kingdom
detailing the conditions in many large-scale industrial farms. A year later, the Brambell
Commission Report outlined criteria for the scientific investigation of farm animal welfare.
This blue ribbon panel was composed of veterinarians, animal scientists, and biologists, and
defined welfare in tems of both physical and mental well being. It was a radical statement for the
time and still contributes to the debate on farm animal welfare today. In 1997, the Farm Animal
Welfare Council in the United Kingdom adopted the “five freedoms” outlined in the Brambell
Commission Report.
Today, it is universally accepted that we consider that good animal welfare implies both
fitness and a sense of well-being. Any animal kept by humans must at least be protected from
unnecessary suffering. An animal’s welfare, whether on farm, in transit, at market, or at a place
of slaughter, should be considered in terms of the five freedoms. These freedoms define ideal
states rather than standards for acceptable welfare. They form a logical and comprehensive
framework for analysis of welfare within any system together with the steps and compromises
necessary to safeguard and improve welfare within the proper constraints of an effective live-
stock industry.

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst—by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full
health and vigor.
2. Freedom from discomfort—by providing an appropriate environment including shelter
and a comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from pain, injury or disease—by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to express normal behavior—by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and
company of the animals’ own kind.
5. Freedom from fear and distress—by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid men-
tal suffering.2

Sound animal husbandry systems that are designed to accommodate the five freedoms do so
at minimal cost to the consumer. In recent years, the European Union has further refined the five
freedoms to clarify and add detail to the original criteria.

European Union Criteria for Animal Well-Being

Welfare Criteria Welfare Principles Meaning
Good feeding Absence of prolonged hunger Animals should not suffer from prolonged hunger
Absence of prolonged thirst Animals should not suffer from prolonged thirst
Good housing Comfort around resting Animals should be comfortable, especially within their lying
areas
Thermal comfort Animals should be in good thermal environment
Ease of movement Animals should be able to move around freely
Good health Absence of injuries Animals should not be physically injured
Absence of disease Animals should be free of disease
Absence of pain induced by Animals should not suffer from pain induced by inappropriate
management procedures management
Appropriate Expression of social Animals should be allowed to express natural, non-harmful,
behavior behaviors social behaviors.
Expression of other behaviors Animals should have the possibility of expressing other
intuitively desirable natural behaviors, such as exploration and
play
64 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

European Union Criteria for Animal Well-Being

Welfare Criteria Welfare Principles Meaning
Good human–animal Good human–animal relationships are beneficial to the welfare of
relationship animals
Absence of general fear Animals should not experience negative emotions such as fear,
distress, frustration, or apathy

Source: European Union Animal Welfare Quality Program: http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/36059/5/0/22).

As the members of the Pew Commission considered animal welfare issues during its inquiry,
it applied the principles of the five freedoms and the enhanced criteria that built on the five free-
doms to determine the quality of animal husbandry in industrial operations. In addition, Pew
Commissioners reviewed scientific analyses of the industrial production system and how it affects
animal welfare. The Commission secured a technical report, titled Animal Well Being, by four
leading animal welfare researchers3 specifically for Commission deliberations. However, perhaps
the most significant information that informed the Commission and influenced its final recommen-
dations on animal welfare issues was the first-hand, visual evidence gained by visiting industrial
animal production facilities.
It is helpful to look at the conditions in the industrial production system of two species that led
the Commission to recommend the phase out and ban of gestation crates, restrictive farrowing
crates, battery cages, and restrictive veal crates.

SwiNE
The Commission had two opportunities to view industrial swine production—one in Iowa and one
in North Carolina. In Iowa, Commissioners visited the Iowa State University (ISU) swine teach-
ing farm. At the ISU farm, the Commission was able to see the industrial model utilizing gestation
crates, the hoop barn system, and an open lot system. All three systems were on a small scale as part
of the overall teaching farm. In North Carolina, the Commission visited a large CAFO that utilized
both the gestation crate system and the group pen system.
Gestation crates and liquid waste management systems are the two components most common
in industrial swine production operations. According to the USDA, a majority of breeding sows in
the United States are housed in gestation crates. In fact, 81% of breeding sows are housed in these
restrictive crates (USDA, 2007).
Gestation crates typically have metal railings to enclose the sow and concrete, slatted floors to
allow the animal’s waste to drop through the floor into a collecting trough. The troughs are then
flushed periodically to wash the feces and urine into an open settling pond, sometimes referred to as
a lagoon. The crates are only slightly larger than the animals are, measuring 0.6 to 0.7 m (2.0 to 2.3
ft) by 2.0 to 2.1 m (6.6 to 6.9 ft)4 and, as a result, the sow cannot turn around and can lie down only
with difficulty. The sows are kept in these crates from insemination until approximately one week
before birth of a litter when they are moved to somewhat less restrictive farrowing crates.
In comparison, pen systems allow sows to be housed in groups of 10 to 12 with room to move
and socialize. The pens vary in sizes depending on the number of sows housed in them. In addition,
floor space allowance, group management, feeding systems, and bedding are among the variable
factors in pen systems.
Hoop barns, similar to the example viewed by the Commissioners at the ISU teaching farm, are
being used more frequently to house pen systems. A hoop barn consists of 4-ft-high sidewalls fit-
ted with steel tubular arches covered with an opaque UV-resistant polypropylene tarp. Most of the
floor area inside the hoop is bedded with cornstalks or other crop residues. The remaining floor is
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 65

a concrete slab where feeders and waterers are located. Pigs typically are housed in groups ranging
from 75 to 250 head, with each building holding one group of pigs. Occasionally, the building is
divided lengthwise to accommodate two groups. Sows also can be housed in hoop barns.5
Visiting and reviewing the North Carolina facility was instructive in viewing the gestation crates
and pen system in a large-scale production. The facility gestation crate system and pen system were
industry standard as outlined previously.
The contrast between the two systems within one operation was dramatic. The sows in the three
gestation crate buildings were vocalizing constantly and moving forward and backward in their limited
space creating a chaotic atmosphere in the buildings. Many were chewing on the bars in the front of their
stalls and made aggressive moves toward Commissioners as they walked in the narrow aisle between
the rows of stalls. The animals’ contact with people was limited due to the automated watering and feed-
ing systems and contact with other swine was almost non-existent due to the restrictions of the crates.
By contrast, the sows in the three buildings configured to house sows in a pen system were more
docile and not as vocal, with the exception of brief, periodic episodes to establish the social order.
Sows were more inquisitive about the Commissioners and exhibited none of the aggressive, agitated
behavior seen in the crate buildings.

LAYERs
Commissioners visited a concentrated egg laying facility in eastern Colorado, the largest in the
state, to view both caged and cage-free egg production. The company produces caged eggs, cage-
free eggs, and organic eggs that are marketed under several brands in the western United States. Of
the 12 large barns housing laying hens, 4 housed the cage-free system.
The outside configuration of the cage-free and caged buildings was identical, constructed of
cinderblock, measuring approximately 300 ft long and 100 ft wide. Owners began converting the
facility to include cage-free production in 2002 based on increased consumer demand for cage-free
eggs and the higher market value for cage-free eggs. The cage-free production model used by this
facility is based on a model used extensively in Germany.
The interiors of the two types of production differed dramatically. In the caged buildings, wire
cages housing the laying hens were stacked approximately 40 ft high with cages resting on top of
one another. Five to six birds were housed in each cage roughly the size of a standard office file
drawer. Industry standards allow for approximately 67 in.2 for each bird, roughly the size of an
8 × 10 in. piece of paper. The floors of the cages were wire, raising welfare concerns for hens that
lived their entire lives in the small, confined cages.
Feed and water were supplied to one side of the wire cages and the hens would stick their heads
out through the wire to eat and drink. Litter and eggs dropped out the back of the cage and were
taken to the end of the line of cages via a conveyor belt. Feed and water were delivered by an auto-
mated system. Birds could only move around with difficulty and could not spread their wings. There
was no ability to dust bathe or to exhibit other normal behaviors.
The cage-free buildings were enclosed with no access to the outside. However, there were no bat-
tery cages, but instead two levels. The lower level was a dirt floor where birds could move freely about,
dust bathe, and socialize. The upper level was accessible by ramps, and contained perching areas and
enhanced housing for the hens to lay their eggs. Feed and water were available on both levels. Freedom
of movement and expression of natural behaviors was much greater in the cage-free system.

PEW COMMISSION CONCLUSION ON RESTRICTIVE CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS

After reviewing the literature, visiting production facilities, and listening to producers themselves,
the Commission determined that the most intensive confinement systems, such as restrictive veal
crates, hog gestation pens, restrictive farrowing crates, and battery cages for poultry, all prevent the
animal from a normal range of movement, and constitute inhumane treatment.
66 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

COMPLETE ANIMAL WELFARE RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE PEW COMMISSION
The welfare of the animals we consume for food should be an integral component in the decisions
we make about how they are raised. The industrial model of animal production has reduced talking
about sentient beings to production units as opposed to living creatures. While it delivers a uniform
meat and egg product, that comes at a cost to the animals, and eventually to those people raising the
animals in an industrial system.
The full Pew Commission recommendations dealing with animal welfare concerns follow.

1. THE ANimAl AGRiCUlTURE iNDUsTRY sHOUlD imPlEmENT FEDERAl PERFORmANCE-

bAsED sTANDARDs TO imPROVE ANimAl HEAlTH AND wEll-bEiNG.

The federal government should develop performance-based (not resource-based) animal welfare
standards. Animal welfare has improved in recent years based on industry research and consumer
demand; the latter has led, for example, to the creation of the United Egg Producers’ certifica-
tion program and the McDonald’s animal welfare council. However, in order to fulfill our ethical
responsibility to treat farm animals humanely, federally monitored standards that ensure at least the
following minimum standards for animal treatment should be enacted:

• Good feeding: Animals should not suffer prolonged hunger or thirst.

• Good housing: Animals should be comfortable especially in their lying areas, should not
suffer thermal extremes, and should have enough space to move around freely.
• Good health: Animals should not be physically injured and should be free of preventable
disease related to production; in the event that surgical procedures are performed on ani-
mals for the purposes of health or management, modalities should be used to minimize
pain.
• Appropriate behavior: Animals should be allowed to perform normal non-harmful social
behaviors and to express species-specific natural behaviors as much as reasonably possible;
animals should be handled well in all situations (handlers should promote good human–
animal relationships); negative emotions such as fear, distress, extreme frustration, or bore-
dom should be avoided.

Implement a government oversight system similar in structure to that used for laboratory ­animal
welfare.
Each CAFO facility would be certified by an industry-funded, government-chartered, not-for-
profit entity accredited by the federal government to monitor the CAFO. Federal entities would audit
CAFO facilities for compliance. Consumers could look for the third-party certification as proof that
the production process meets federal farm animal welfare standards.
Change the system for monitoring and regulating animal welfare, recommend improvements in
animal welfare as a science, and encourage consumers to continue to push animal welfare policy.
Improved animal husbandry practices and an ethically based view of animal welfare will solve or
ameliorate many CAFO animal welfare problems.
Federal standards for farm animal welfare should be developed immediately based on a fair, ethi-
cal, and evidence-based understanding of normal animal behavior (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 83).

2. ImPlEmENT bETTER ANimAl HUsbANDRY PRACTiCEs TO imPROVE

PUbliC HEAlTH AND ANimAl wEll-bEiNG.

Change breeding practices to include attributes and genetics besides productivity, growth, and car-
cass condition (Appleby and Lawrence, 1987); for example, hogs might be bred for docile behavior,
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 67

fowl for bone strength and organ capacity, and sows, dairy and beef cattle for “good” mothering. In
recent decades, farm animals have been selectively bred for specific physical traits (e.g., fast growth,
increased lean muscle mass, increased milk production) that have led to greater incidence of and
susceptibility to transmissible diseases, new genetic diseases, a larger number and scope of mental
or behavioral abnormalities, and lameness.
Improve and expand the teaching of animal husbandry practices at land-grant universities.
Federal and state governments should fund (through tax incentives and directed education fund-
ing, including for technical colleges) the training of farm workers and food industry personnel in
sustainable, ethical animal husbandry.
Diversify the type of farm animal production systems taught at land-grant schools beyond the
status quo CAFO system. Increase funding for the teaching of good husbandry and alternative
production techniques through local extension offices. Work to reduce and eliminate “production
diseases,” defined as diseases caused by production management or nutritional practices; liver
abscesses in feedlot cattle are an example of a production disease (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 85).

3. PHAsE OUT THE mOsT iNTENsiVE AND iNHUmANE PRODUCTiON PRACTiCEs wiTHiN A
DECADE TO REDUCE IFAP RisKs TO PUbliC HEAlTH AND imPROVE ANimAl wEll-bEiNG.

• Gestation crates where sows are kept for their entire 124-day gestation period. The crates
do not allow the animals to turn around or express natural behaviors, and they restrict the
sow’s ability to lie down comfortably. Alternatives such as open feeding stalls and pens
can be used to manage sows.
• Restrictive farrowing crates, in which sows are not able to turn around or exhibit natu-
ral behavior. As an alternative, farrowing systems (e.g., the Freedom Farrowing System,
Natural Farrowing Systems) provide protection to the piglets while allowing more freedom
of movement for the sow.
• Any cages that house multiple egg-laying chickens (commonly referred to as “battery cages”)
without allowing the hens to exhibit normal behavior (e.g., pecking, scratching, roosting).
• The tethering or individual housing of calves for the production of white veal. This practice
is already rare in the United States, so its phase-out can be done quickly.
• Forced feeding of fowl to produce foie gras.
• Tail docking of dairy cattle.
• Forced molting by feed removal for laying hens to extend the laying period (for the most
part, this has been phased out by UEP standards implemented in 2002) (Pew Commission,
2008, p. 85).

4. ImPROVE ANimAl wElFARE PRACTiCEs AND CONDiTiONs THAT POsE

A THREAT TO PUbliC HEAlTH AND ANimAl wEll-bEiNG.

• Flooring and housing conditions in feedlots and dairies: Cattle kept on concrete, left in
excessive amounts of feces, and not provided shade or misting in hot climates.
• Flooring and other housing conditions at swine facilities: Hogs that spend their entire life-
time on concrete are prone to higher rates of leg injury (Andersen and Boe, 1999; Brennan
and Aherne, 1987).
• The method of disposal of unwanted male chicks and of adult fowl in catastrophic situa-
tions that require the destruction of large numbers of birds.
• Hand-catching methods for fowl that result in the animals’ broken limbs, bruising, and stress.
• Body-altering procedures that cause pain to the animals, either during or afterward.
• Air quality in IFAP buildings: Gas buildup can cause respiratory harm to animal health
and to IFAP workers through exposure to gas buildup, toxic dust, and other irritants.
68 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

• Ammonia burns on the feet and hocks of fowl due to contact with litter.
• Some weaning practices for piglets, beef cattle, and veal calves: The shortening of the
weaning period or abrupt weaning to move the animals to market faster can stress the
animals and make them more vulnerable to disease.

The federal government should act on the following recommendations to improve animal
welfare:

• Strengthen and enforce laws dealing with the transport of livestock by truck. Transport
laws should also address the over-packing of livestock during transportation, long-distance
transport of farm animals without adequate care, and transport of very young animals.
• The federal government must include fowl under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
(Pew Commission, 2008, p. 86).

5. I mPROVE ANimAl wElFARE REsEARCH iN sUPPORT OF COsT-EFFECTiVE AND REliAblE

wAYs TO RAisE FOOD ANimAls wHilE PROViDiNG HUmANE ANimAl CARE.

There is a significant amount of animal welfare research being done, but the funding often comes
from special interest groups. Some of this research is published and distributed to the agriculture
industry, but without acknowledgment of the funding sources. Such lack of disclosure taints main-
stream animal welfare research. To improve the transparency of animal research, there needs to be
disclosure of funding sources for peer-reviewed published research. Much of today’s agriculture and
livestock research, for example, comes from land-grant colleges with animal science and agricul-
ture departments that are heavily endowed by special interests or industry. However, a lot of very
good research on humane methods of stunning and slaughter has been funded by the industry.
More diversity in the funding sources for animal welfare research is also needed. Most animal
welfare research takes place at land-grant institutions, but other institutions should not be barred
from engaging in animal welfare research due to lack of research funds. The federal government
is in the best position to provide unbiased animal welfare research; therefore, federal funding for
animal welfare research should be revived and increased.
Focus research on animal-based outcomes relating to natural behavior and stress, and away from
physical factors (e.g., growth, weight gain) that do not accurately characterize an animal’s welfare
status except in the grossest sense.
Include ethics as a key component of research into the humaneness of a particular practice.
Scientific outcomes are critical, but whether a practice is ethical must be taken into account (Pew
Commission, 2008, p. 86).

BACKGROUND ON THE IMPACT ON RURAL COMMUNITIES

The nature of agriculture is changing and with that change, the social fabric of rural America is
changing as well. The family-owned farm producing a diverse mix of crops and food animals is
largely gone as an economic entity, replaced by large farm factories for animals and monoculture
cropping for grains and fiber.
Since the 1930s, research consistently has shown the social and economic well-being of rural
communities benefits from larger numbers of farmers rather than fewer farms producing increased
volumes. The more farmers there are producing our food and fiber, the more support there is for
Main Street business, religious institutions, schools, and social organizations.
Researchers in Michigan documented the magnitude of this difference by tracking local purchases
of supplies for swine production. Abeles-Allison and Connor (1990) found that local expenditures per
hog were $67 for the small, locally owned farms and $46 for the larger, industrialized farms. The $21
difference is largely due to the larger farms’ purchases of bulk food from outside the community.
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 69

COMPLETE RURAL COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. STATEs, COUNTiEs, AND lOCAl GOVERNmENTs sHOUlD imPlEmENT ZONiNG AND
siTiNG GUiDANCE GOVERNiNG NEw IFAP OPERATiONs THAT FAiRlY AND EFFECTiVElY
EVAlUATE THE sUiTAbiliTY OF A siTE FOR THEsE TYPEs OF FACiliTiEs.

Regulatory agencies should consider the following factors for inclusion in their IFAP plans, and
should adopt such guidelines regardless of whether an IFAP facility currently exists in their juris-
diction. (Please note that each of the following components should take climate, soil type, prevail-
ing winds, topography, air emissions, operation size, noise levels, traffic, designated lands, and
other criteria deemed relevant into account.)

• Setback distances: IFAP facilities pose environmental and public health risks to the areas
in which they are sited. Determining an exact distance from the production facility at
which risks begin and end is very difficult, but it is important to consider. Distances from
schools, residences, surface and groundwater sources, religious institutions, parks, and
areas designated to protect wildlife should all be factored into the proposed location of a
food animal production facility. Waterways are particularly crucial as any waste that seeps
into water sources may travel great distances. Proximity, size, available environmental
monitoring data, and state regulations for setbacks or other industries also must be taken
into account. Setback distances should be significant enough to alleviate public health
and environmental concerns. Local officials should make determination of appropriate
distances because state regulators cannot take into account every particular factor—they
typically set a minimum base standard, which localities should follow, and make more
stringent where necessary.
• Method of production: Every type of livestock and poultry production has positive and
negative aspects. Zoning officials should consider the economic, environmental, and health
effects of, for example, cage-free versus caged facilities, hoop barn versus crate facilities,
operations with outdoor or pasture access versus permanent indoor confinement, or any
other systems.
• Concentration: Each locality should take into account the number of IFAP facilities already
in existence, particularly per watershed. A surge in the number of IFAP facilities in North
Carolina led to devastating environmental effects, including serious environmental justice
issues. Growth there and in other places has been so rapid that potential concerns were
not fully recognized until they had already created problems. Too many IFAP facilities
in one area can destroy land and waterways and devastate entire communities. No facility
should be sited that cannot coexist with the land, water, environment, or community in a
sustainable manner.
• Waste disposal: One of the most important issues concerning IFAP facilities is the method
of waste handling. If manure is properly applied to land or injected using an approved
manure management plan, there should be enough land available to avoid runoff into sur-
face or groundwater or seepage into groundwater. Many states have already become aware
of the potentially hazardous nature of lagoons and, therefore, have made the decision to
prohibit them for new facilities. The aforementioned criteria are very important in ensur-
ing waste can be handled properly. Consideration should be given to the fact that animal
waste can be as dangerous, if not more so, than untreated human waste and some industrial
wastes. Further, localities should operate under the premise that every IFAP facility has
the potential for runoff and, therefore, should prepare accordingly. Plans to prevent and
deal with this situation are part of the NMP, discussed later.
• Agency capabilities: Local officials should fully fund the costs associated with the review
of zoning applications.
70 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

• Public input: Because IFAP facilities affect the entire community, advance public input
should factor into the decision of whether to site a facility. This should not be only in cases
where there is controversy. Public input is important to a community’s well-being as it
allows all citizens, regardless of economic or social status, to participate in the decision-
making process. Neighbors and other citizens should also have access to redress when
IFAP facilities fail to comply with standards.
• Local control: Again, localities will have to deal with IFAP impacts and should therefore
be the authority on facilities sited within community boundaries. Local officials and citi-
zens tend to have the best knowledge about potential impacts, positive or negative, whereas
state officials are more likely to make decisions based on generalizations. Further, local
officials are more directly accountable for decisions than state officials are.
• Inspections: The relationship between inspections and zoning is twofold. First, zoning
officials should conduct an on-site inspection before siting an operation to evaluate ade-
quately the criteria mentioned previously. Second, operators should be aware that inspec-
tions would take place as determined by the state in order to ensure all operations follow
established regulations as well as their NMPs.
• Proof of financial responsibility: All operations should be bonded for performance and
remediation.
• Permit fees: Fees are suggested in order to help the state or locality fund inspections,
enforcement, and the day-to-day function of the local agency. Such fees can range from
approximately $100 up to any amount the agency deems appropriate, and should reflect a
sliding scale based on the size of the operation. Two specific components the Commission
believes should be mandatory in zoning permits are:
• Environmental impact statement: The IFAP facility owner and the animal grower must
establish the potential impact of the facility on the land, water, and general environ-
ment. The statement should include best practice information for maintaining soil,
water, and air quality, as well as descriptions of chemical management (e.g., use of
fertilizers), manure management, carcass management, storm water response, and an
emergency response plan, at a minimum.
• NMP: All IFAP facilities must comply with USDA-NRCS Standard 590, which requires
an NMP. NMPs outline appropriate methods for handling and disposing of manure,
including land application issues. Producers should be able to indicate clearly in their
NMP that the facility will implement all possible best practices to minimize the potential
for runoff, and that they will minimize runoff during catastrophic events (e.g., floods).

Background
Regulations governing the siting and zoning of IFAP facilities vary tremendously across the coun-
try. In fact, many states, counties, and local governments have little or no regulations on the books
for dealing with new IFAP facilities. Questions often arise on how to establish zoning and siting
regulations, how to enforce them, and how to reconcile the needs of the producers and integra-
tors with the lifestyle and health of their neighbors and environmental maintenance of the land.
Without well-developed and thought-out regulations, governments are often unable to regulate the
siting of IFAP facilities in a way that protects the rights of both the community and the producers.
Compliance with all criteria of a zoning permit ensures protection of communities, producers, and
the environment (Pew Commission, 2008, pp. 89–91).

2. ImPlEmENT POliCiEs TO AllOw FOR A COmPETiTiVE mARKETPlACE iN ANimAl AGRiCUlTURE

TO REDUCE THE ENViRONmENTAl AND PUbliC HEAlTH imPACTs OF THE IFAP.

The Commission recommends the vigorous enforcement of current federal antitrust laws to restore
competition in the farm animal market. If enforcing existing antitrust laws is not effective in restoring
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 71

competition, further legislative remedies should be considered, such as more transparency in price
reporting and limiting the ability of integrators to control the supply of animals for slaughter.

Background
The current food animal production system is highly concentrated and exhibits conditions that sug-
gest monopsony, in which there are very few buyers for a large number of suppliers. Under monop-
sonistic conditions, fewer goods are sold, prices are higher in output markets and lower for sellers
of inputs, and wealth is transferred from the party without market power to the party with market
power. For example, the top four pork-producing companies in the United States control 60% of the
pork market, and the top four beef packers control over 80% of the beef market. Farmers have little
choice but to contract with those few producers if they are to sell the food animals they grow.
Vigorous market competition is of vital importance to consumers: They benefit most from an
open, competitive, and fair market where the values of democracy, freedom, transparency, and effi-
ciency are in balance. Rural communities and consumers suffer from a loss of competitive markets
as wealth is transferred from the party without market power to the party with market power. These
situations require robust remedy.
The consolidation in the food animal industry, as well as the continued growth of completely
integrated operations (where the processor owns the farm, the animals, and the processing plant),
has led to a situation where independent producers, whether contracting or selling on the open
market, are beholden to big corporations. Growers often take out large loans to pay for land and
equipment in anticipation of a contract from a big corporate integrator. Because the contracts are
often presented in “take-it-or-leave-it” terms, the producer may end up with a large loan and no way
to pay it off if the integrator revokes the contract (Pew Commission, 2008, p. 93).

SUMMARY
This chapter has introduced the goals and impacts of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Production
and has provided a background for Chapter 5, which explores the varied viewpoints and approaches to
animal welfare issues expressed from differing perspectives. In addition to animal welfare issues, the
PEW Report also identified public health, environmental, and rural community concerns.

REFERENCES
Abeles-Allison M, Connor L (1990). An Analysis of Local Benefits and Costs of Michigan hog operations experienc-
ing environmental conflicts. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
AHI (2002). Survey Shows Decline in Antibiotics Use in Animals. Animal Health Institute.
Andersen IL, Boe KE (1999). Straw bedding or concrete floor for loose-housed pregnant sows: Consequences
for aggression, production and physical health. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section a-Animal Science
49: 190–195.
Anderson AD, McClellan J, Rossiter S, Angulo FJ (2003). Public health consequences of use of antimicrobial
agents in agriculture. In: The Resistance Phenomenon in Microbes and Infectious Disease Vectors:
Implications for Human Health and Strategies for Containment Workshop. Knobler SL, Lemon SM,
Najafi M, Burroughs T, (eds). The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, pp. 231–243.
Appleby MC, Lawrence AB (1987). Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behavior in tethered gilts. Animal
Production 45: 103–110.
Arteaga ST (2001). National pollutant discharge elimination system compliance challenges. In: American
Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting: St. Joseph, MI.
Batt AL, Snow DD, Aga DS (2006). Occurrence of sulfonamide antimicrobials in private water wells in
Washington County, Idaho, USA. Chemosphere 64: 1963–71.
Brennan JJ, Aherne FX (1987). Effect of floor type on the severity of foot lesions and osteochondrosis in swine.
Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 517–523.
Centner TJ (2006). Governmental oversight of discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations.
Environmental Management 37: 745–52.
72 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Copeland C (2006). Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA Regulation of Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs). Service CR, (ed). United States Congress: Washington, DC, pp. CRS-1-CRS-23.
Cosgrove SE, Qi Y, Kaye KS, Harbarth S, Karchmer AW, Carmeli Y (2005). The impact of methicillin resis-
tance in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia on patient outcomes: mortality, length of stay, and hospital
charges. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 26: 166–74.
CDC/FDA/NIH (1999). A Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance. Interagency Task
Force on Antimicrobial Resistance.
DOE, FRA (2001). British Cattle Movement Service.
EPA (2003). NPDES Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations.
EPA (2007a). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2005. National Center for
Environmental Publications, pp. 393.
EPA (2007b). U.S. EPA 2008 Compliance and Enforcement: Clean Water Act. pp. 1–3
FDA-CVM (2003). Guidance for Industry #152.
Idris U, Lu J, Maier M, Sanchez S, Hofacre CL, Harmon BG, Maurer JJ, Lee MD (2006). Dissemination of
fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter spp. within an integrated commercial poultry production sys-
tem. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72: 3441–7.
IOM (1998). Antimicrobial drug resistance: Issues and Options. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
Kelly N (March 20, 2007). Senate panel cool to feed-farm curbs. In: The Journal Gazette: Ft. Wayne.
Krapac IG, Koike, S., Meyer, M.T., Snow, D.D., Chou, S.F.J., Mackie, R.I., Roy, W.R., and Chee-Sanford, J.C. (2004).
Long term monitoring of the occurrence of antibiotics residues and antibiotic resistance genes in groundwa-
ter near swing confinement facilities. In: 4nd International Conference on Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals in Water. National Ground Water Association: Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp. 158–174.
Meatnews.com (2005). Europe Bans Antibiotic Growth Promoters.
Mellon MG, Benbrook C, Benbrook KL, Union of Concerned Scientists. (2001). Hogging it: Estimates of
antimicrobial abuse in livestock. Union of Concerned Scientists: Cambridge, MA.
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2008). Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. Final
Report, Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, April 2008. Washington, DC: Author.
NAS (1999). The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
NASDA (2001). Comments on Pollutant Discharge Regulation / Guidelines & Standards for Animal Feeding
Operations. Graves L, (ed). National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
NCSL (2008). Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: A Survey of State Policies. In: A Report to the
Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. PCIFAP, (ed). National Conference of State
Legislatures: Washington, DC.
NPB (2005). Take Care: A Producer’s Guide to Using Antibiotics Responsibly. Des Moines, Iowa.
Peak N, Knapp CW, Yang RK, Hanfelt MM, Smith MS, Aga DS, Graham DW (2007). Abundance of six tetra-
cycline resistance genes in wastewater lagoons at cattle feedlots with different antibiotic use strategies.
Environmental Microbiology 9: 143–51.
(2007a). Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. (2007b) should be changed. Both citations
reference the same legislation.
Schiffman SS, Studwell CE, Landerman LR, Berman K, Sundy JS (2005). Symptomatic effects of exposure
to diluted air sampled from a swine confinement atmosphere on healthy human subjects. Environmental
Health Perspectives 113: 567–76
Sigurdarson ST, Kline JN (2006). School proximity to concentrated animal feeding operations and prevalence
of asthma in students. Chest 129: 1486–91.
Smith JL, Drum DJ, Dai Y, Kim JM, Sanchez S, Maurer JJ, Hofacre CL, Lee MD (2007). Impact of antimicro-
bial usage on antimicrobial resistance in commensal Escherichia coli strains colonizing broiler chickens.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 73: 1404–14.
Stolz JF, Perera E, Kilonzo B, Kail B, Crable B, Fisher E, Ranganathan M, Wormer L, Basu P (2007).
Biotransformation of 3-nitro-4-hydroxybenzene arsonic acid (roxarsone) and release of inorganic arsenic
by Clostridium species. Environmental Science Technology 41: 818–23.
USDA (2005). National Animal Identification System: Draft Strategic Plan. USDA, (ed).
USDA, APHIS (2006). National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
USGS (2006). Pharmaceuticals and Other Emerging Contaminants in the Environment-Transport, Fate, and
Effects Ecology.
WSDo (2006). Agency-Wide Notices, Orders & Penalties 1985–2005. Report WSDoEE, (ed), Drop in inspec-
tions when authority given to Department of Agriculture in 2003, as compared with previous years when
Department of Ecology had dairy inspection authority.
The Opinions and Recommendations of One Particular Study Group 73

Western Organization of Resource Councils (May 2006). National Animal Identification System: The
Unanswered Questions.
Woolhouse ME, Gowtage-Sequeria S (2005). Host range and emerging and reemerging pathogens. Emerging
Infectious Diseases 11: 1842–7.
Woolhouse ME, Taylor LH, Haydon DT (2001). Population biology of multihost pathogens. Science 292:
1109–12.
WHO (2000). Report on Infectious Diseases, Geneva, Switzerland.
WHO (2002). Impacts of antimicrobial growth promoter termination in Denmark. In: International Invitational
Symposium: Beyond Antimicrobial Growth Promoters in Food Animal Production. Panel WIR, (ed).
WHO Department of Communicable Diseases, Prevention and Eradication: Foulum, Denmark.

ENDNOTES
1. Commission members were: former Kansas Governor John Carlin, chair; Michael Blackwell, DVM, MPH
former Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Tennessee/Knoxville, Assistant
Surgeon General, USPHS (Ret.), vice chair; Brother David Andrews, CSC, JD; Fedele Bauccio, MBA,
Founder and CEO of Bon Appetite Management Company; Tom Dempster, South Dakota State Senator;
Dan Glickman, JD, former United States Department of Agriculture Secretary; Alan M. Goldberg, PhD,
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; John Hatch, DrPH, University of North Carolina;
Dan Jackson, Montana Cattle Rancher; Frederick M. Kirschenmann, PhD, Distinguished Fellow,
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University; James Merchant, MD, DrPH, Dean,
University of Iowa School of Public Health; Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, Department of Nutrition, Food
Studies, and Public Health, New York University; Bill Niman, founder of Niman Ranches, Inc.; Bernard
Rollin, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Colorado State University; and Mary Wilson, MD,
Associate Professor, Harvard School of Public Health, Associate Clinical Professor, Harvard Medical
School.
2. Source: fawc, 2007 at http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms
3. Joy A. Mensch, Professor, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis; Harvey
James, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri; Edmond A.
Pajor, Associate Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University; and Paul D. Thompson,
W.K. Kellogg Professor of Agriculture, Food, and Community Ethics, Michigan State University.
4. Commission of the European Communities. 2001. COM(2001) 20 final 2001/0021 (CNS) Communication
from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the welfare of intensively kept pigs
in particular taking into account the welfare of sows reared in varying degrees of confinement and in
groups. Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum stan-
dards for the protection of pigs.
5. http://www.abe.iastate.edu/hoop_structures/
 5 Defining Agricultural
Animal Welfare
Varying Viewpoints
and Approaches
Bernard E. Rollin, Donald M. Broom, David Fraser,
Gail C. Golab, Charles Arnot, and Paul Shapiro

CONTENTS
First Viewpoint: An Ethicist’s and Philosopher’s Perspective.......................................................... 76
References.................................................................................................................................... 83
Second Viewpoint: From a Sustainability and Product Quality Perspective....................................84
Introduction..................................................................................................................................84
Sustainability................................................................................................................................ 85
What Is Food Product Quality?.................................................................................................... 87
Aspects of Sustainability and Product Quality............................................................................ 88
Human Disease Resulting from a Food Product, Sustainability, and Product Quality........... 88
Human Diet, Sustainability, and Product Quality................................................................... 88
Genetic Modification, Sustainability, and Product Quality..................................................... 89
Animal Welfare, Sustainability, and Product Quality.............................................................. 89
Conservation, Carbon Footprint, Sustainability, and Product Quality.................................... 89
Efficient Use of World Food Resources, Sustainability, and Product Quality........................ 89
Fair Trade, Preserving Rural Communities, Sustainability, and Product Quality...................90
References....................................................................................................................................90
Third Viewpoint: Understanding Animal Welfare from a Research Scientist’s Perspective............ 91
Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 91
Three Views of Animal Welfare...................................................................................................92
Animal Welfare and Science........................................................................................................94
Clarifying and Applying The Views............................................................................................. 95
Concluding Remarks....................................................................................................................96
Summary......................................................................................................................................97
References....................................................................................................................................97
Fourth Viewpoint: Understanding Animal Welfare from a Veterinarian’s Perspective..................... 98
Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 98
What Is Good Welfare?................................................................................................................99
Personal Values........................................................................................................................99
Experiences and Influences................................................................................................... 100
Applying Science.................................................................................................................. 101
Challenges for Veterinarians...................................................................................................... 101
Professional Homogeneity.................................................................................................... 102
Professional Diversity in Service.......................................................................................... 102

75
76 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Professional Diversity in Demographics............................................................................... 103

Understanding and Accepting the Role of Science............................................................... 104
The Value of Multidisciplinary Contributions....................................................................... 104
The Actuary, the Mechanic, or the Pediatrician?................................................................... 105
Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture: Opportunities and Obligations.................................... 105
Summary.................................................................................................................................... 106
References.................................................................................................................................. 106
Fifth Viewpoint: Industry Perspective on Animal Welfare............................................................. 107
Summary.................................................................................................................................... 110
References.................................................................................................................................. 111
Sixth Viewpoint: An Activist’s Perspective on Animal Welfare..................................................... 111
Where Does the American Public Stand?.................................................................................. 112
How Much Legal Protection Do Farm Animals Have Now?..................................................... 113
Cage Confinement of Laying Hens............................................................................................ 113
Gestation Crate Confinement of Breeding Pigs......................................................................... 115
Forced Rapid Growth of Birds Raised for Meat........................................................................ 116
Moving Forward to a Better Future for Farm Animals.............................................................. 117
References.................................................................................................................................. 118
Endnotes.......................................................................................................................................... 119

FIRST VIEWPOINT: AN ETHICIST’S AND PHILOSOPHER’S PERSPECTIVE

Bernard E. Rollin
As anyone can tell from Robert Martin’s chapter on the Pew Commission findings, or simply by
reading the news, animal agriculture faces myriad socio-ethical problems, including concerns about
the effects of manure created by confined animal feeding operations on the environment, concerns
about human health effects of such operations, concerns about zoonotic diseases, and concerns
about modern agriculture’s effect on small agriculture and rural communities. These issues are
quite clear; the problem becomes finding reasonable solutions that meet societal concerns on the one
hand, and are practicable on the other.
In the case of animal welfare, however, the conceptual basis of the problem is not well under-
stood by industry. What seems to completely elude both the agriculture industry and the veteri-
narians who leap to its defense is that “animal welfare” contains an irreducibly ethical or moral
component. Universally, however, the animal agricultural industry and the veterinarians who serve
it see the issue of animal welfare as a strictly empirical notion, with no ethical component, open to
being resolved by, to use the recurrent industry phrase, “sound science.” I shall argue that as long as
industry fails to understand the irreducibly ethical component of “animal welfare,” it can make no
progress toward satisfying social-ethical concerns.
Those of us serving on the Pew Commission, better known as the National Commission on
Industrial Farm Animal Production, encountered this erroneous response regularly during our deal-
ings with industry representatives. This commission studied intensive animal agriculture in the
United States (Pew Trusts, 2008). For example, one representative of the Pork Producers, testifying
before the Commission, answered that while people in her industry were quite “nervous” about the
Commission, their anxiety would be allayed were we to base all of our conclusions and recom-
mendations on “sound science.” Hoping to rectify the error in that comment, as well as educate the
numerous industry representatives present, I responded to her as follows: “Madame, if we on the
Commission were asking the question of how to raise swine in confinement, science could certainly
answer that question for us. But that is not the question the Commission, or society, is asking. What
we are asking is, ought we to raise swine in confinement? And to this question, science is not rel-
evant.” Judging by her “huh,” I assume I did not make my point.
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 77

Questions of animal welfare are at least partly “ought” questions, questions of ethical obliga-
tion. The concept of animal welfare is an ethical concept to which science brings relevant data.
When we ask about an animal’s welfare, or about a person’s welfare, we are asking about what we
owe the animal, and to what extent. A document called the CAST report, first published by U.S.
agricultural scientists in the early 1980s, discussed animal welfare, and eloquently illustrated the
limitation of the “sound science” approach when it affirmed that the necessary and sufficient con-
ditions for attributing positive welfare to an animal were represented by the animals’ productiv-
ity. A productive animal enjoyed positive welfare; a nonproductive animal enjoyed poor welfare
(CAST, 1981).
This notion was fraught with many difficulties. First, productivity is an economic notion predi-
cated on a whole operation; welfare is predicated on individual animals. An operation, such as
caged laying hens, may be quite profitable if the cages are severely over-crowded yet the individual
hens do not enjoy good welfare. Second, as we shall see, equating productivity and welfare is, to
some significant extent, legitimate under husbandry conditions, where the producer does well if and
only if the animals do well, and square pegs, as it were, are fitted into square holes with as little
friction as possible. Under industrial conditions, however, animals do not naturally fit in the niche
or environment in which they are kept, and are subjected to “technological sanders” that allow for
producers to force square pegs into round holes—antibiotics, feed additives, hormones, air handling
systems—so the animals do not die and produce more and more kilograms of meat or milk. Without
these technologies, the animals could not be productive. We will return to the contrast between
husbandry and industrial approaches to animal agriculture.
The key point to recall here is that even if the CAST report definition of animal welfare did not
suffer from the difficulties we outlined, it is still an ethical concept. It essentially says, “What we
owe animals and to what extent is simply what it takes to get them to create profit.” This in turn
would imply that the animals are well off if they have only food, water, and shelter, something the
industry has sometimes asserted, but clearly does not satisfy societal concerns. Even in the early
1980s and before, however, there were animal advocates and others who would take a very differ-
ent ethical stance on what we owe farm animals. Indeed, the famous five freedoms articulated in
Britain by the Farm Animal Welfare Council during the 1970s (even before the CAST report) rep-
resents quite a different ethical view of what we owe animals, when it affirms that:

The welfare of an animal includes its physical and mental state and we consider that good animal wel-
fare implies both fitness and a sense of well-being. Any animal kept by man must, at least, be protected
from unnecessary suffering.
We believe that an animal’s welfare, whether on farm, in transit, at market or at a place of slaughter,
should be considered in terms of “five freedoms” (see www.fawc.org.uk and Chapter 4, Martin, this
book).

1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst—by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full
health and vigor.
2. Freedom from Discomfort—by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a
comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from Pain, Injury, or Disease—by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to Express Normal Behavior—by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and
company of the animal’s own kind.
5. Freedom from Fear and Distress—by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid ­mental
suffering.

Clearly, the two definitions contain very different notions of our moral obligation to animals (and
there is an indefinite number of other definitions). Which is correct, of course, cannot be decided by
gathering facts or doing experiments—indeed, as we shall see, which ethical framework one adopts
will in fact determine the shape of one’s science studying animal welfare!
78 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Science tells us about the physical world. It uncovers empirical facts and creates theoretical mod-
els to explain those facts. As the great twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once
remarked, “If one takes an inventory of all the facts in the universe, one does not find it a fact that
­killing is wrong. Nor does one find any ethical facts.” As Hume famously pointed out, statements
of fact are is statements; statements of ethics are ought statements. A huge conceptual gulf yawns
between is and ought. Since, as we just explained, the concept of animal welfare is at root ethics-
laden, it is impossible for issues of welfare to be resolved without appeal to ethics, that is, by referring
them to science. Ironically, Smithfield Farms understood this when they sampled public opinion and
agreed to phase out gestation crates, while the American Veterinary Medical Association tellingly
said that there is no scientific way of validating a preference for one system of sow housing over
another.
Let us return to the notion raised earlier, that far from sound science determining animal ­welfare,
the ethical component of animal welfare will determine the nature of your science answering
­questions about various aspects of animal welfare.
To clarify, suppose you hold the view that an animal is well off when it is productive, as per the
CAST report. The role of your welfare science in this case will be to study what feed, ­bedding,
­temperature, etc. are most efficient at producing the most meat, milk, or eggs for the least money—
much what animal and veterinary science does today. On the other hand, if you take the FAWC
view of welfare, your efficiency will be constrained by the need to acknowledge the animal’s natural
behavior and mental states, and to assure that there is minimal pain, fear, distress, or discomfort—
not factors in the CAST view of welfare unless they have a negative impact on economic ­productivity.
Thus, actually, sound science does not determine your concept of welfare; rather, your concept of
animal welfare determines what counts as relevant sound science! Indeed, in one ­version of animal
welfare, that of Ian Duncan, Marian Dawkins, and the author, which views animal ­welfare as based
on subjective experiences and feelings of animals, mainstream science helps very little if at all,
being agnostic about the knowability of animal thoughts and feelings.
The failure to recognize the inescapable ethical component in the concept of animal welfare
leads inexorably to those holding different ethical views talking past each other. Thus, producers
ignore questions of animal pain, fear, distress, confinement, truncated mobility, bad air quality,
social isolation, and impoverished environment unless any of these factors negatively affect the
“bottom line.” Animal advocates, on the other hand, give such factors primacy, and are very unim-
pressed with how efficient or productive the system may be.
A major question obviously arises here. If the notion of animal welfare is inseparable from
­ethical components, and people’s ethical stance on obligations to farm animals differs markedly
across a highly diverse spectrum, whose ethic is to predominate and define, in law or regulation,
what counts as “animal welfare”? This is of great concern to the agriculture industry, worrying as
it does about “vegetarian activists hell-bent on abolishing meat.” In fact, of course, such concern
is misplaced, for the chance of such an extremely radical thing happening is vanishingly small.
Largely, however, the ethic adopted in society reflects a societal consensus, what most people either
believe to be right and wrong or are willing to accept upon reflection.
All of us have our own personal ethics, which rule a goodly portion of our lives. Such fun-
damental questions as what we read, what we eat, to whom we give charity, what political and
­religious beliefs we hold, and myriad others are answered by our personal ethics. These derive from
many sources—parents, religious institutions, friends, reading books, movies, and television. One
is certainly entitled to believe ethically as do some PETA members, that “meat is murder,” that one
should be a vegan, that it is immoral to use products derived from animal research, and so on.
Clearly, a society, particularly a free society, contains a bewildering array of such personal
ethics, with the potential for significant clashes between them. If my personal ethic is based on
­fundamentalist religious beliefs and yours is based on celebrating the pleasures of the flesh, we are
destined to clash, perhaps violently. For this reason, social life cannot function simply by ­relying on
an individual’s personal ethics, except perhaps in singularly monolithic cultures where all members
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 79

share overwhelmingly the same values. One can find examples of something resembling this in
small towns in rural farming areas, where there is no need to lock one’s doors, remove one’s keys
from the car, or fear for one’s personal safety. However, such places are few, and are probably
decreasing in number. In larger communities, the extreme case being New York City or London,
one finds a welter of diverse cultures and corresponding personal ethics crammed into a small geo-
graphical locus. For this reason alone, as well as to control those whose personal ethic may entail
taking advantage of others, a social consensus ethic is required, one that transcends personal ethics.
This social consensus ethic is invariably articulated in law, with manifest sanctions for its violation.
As societies evolve, different issues emerge, leading to changes in the social ethic.
My claim then is that beginning roughly in the late 1960s, the treatment of animals has moved
from being a paradigmatic example of personal ethics to ever-increasingly falling within the ­purview
of societal ethics and law. How and why has this occurred, and to what extent?
If one looks to the history of animal use in society back to the beginning of domestication some
11,000 years ago, one finds very little social ethics dictating animal treatment. The one exception
to this generalization is the prohibition against deliberate, purposeless cruelty, that is, needless
infliction of pain and suffering or outrageous neglect, such as failing to provide food or water. This
mandate is well illustrated in the Old Testament, where many injunctions illustrate its presence. For
example, one is told that when collecting eggs from a bird’s nest, one should leave some eggs so as
not to distress the animal. Kosher and halal slaughter accomplished by a trained person using a very
sharp knife was clearly intended as a viable alternative to the much more traumatic bludgeoning.
(That is not of course to suggest that such slaughter remains welfare-friendly in high throughput
industrialized slaughterhouses.) The rule of Kashrut prohibiting the eating of milk and meat—“thou
shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk” (Exodus 34:26)—seems to be aimed at avoiding loss of
sensitivity to animal suffering.
In the middle ages, St. Thomas Aquinas provided a more anthropocentric reason for prohibit-
ing cruelty, based in the prescient psychological insight that those who would abuse animals would
inexorably progress to abusing humans. Aquinas does not see animals as direct objects of moral
concern, but nonetheless, strongly prohibits their abuse.
In the late eighteenth century in Britain, and in subsequent years elsewhere, the prohibition
against deliberate, sadistic, deviant, willful, malicious cruelty, that is, inflicting pain and suffering
on animals to no reasonable purpose, or outrageous neglect such as not providing food or water,
were encoded in the anti-cruelty laws of all civilized societies. While adopted in part out of a moral
notion of limiting animal suffering, an equally important reason was the Thomistic one—to ferret
out individuals who might graduate to harming humans; case law in the United States and elsewhere
make this manifest.
In one revealing case in the nineteenth century, a man was charged with cruelty after throw-
ing pigeons into the air and shooting them to demonstrate his skill. After killing the birds, he
ate them. The court ruled that the pigeons were not “needlessly or unnecessarily killed” because
the killing was done “in the indulgence of a healthful recreating during an exercise tending to
­promote strength, bodily agility and courage” (The State v. Bogardus, 4 MO. App. 215, 219, Mo. Ct.
App. 1877). In discussing a similar nineteenth-century case of a tame pigeon shoot in Colorado, the
court affirmed that “every act that causes pain and suffering to animals is not prohibited. Where the
end or object in view is reasonable and adequate, the act resulting in pain is…necessary and justifi-
able, as…where the act is done to protect life or property, or to minister to the necessities of man”
(Waters v. the People, Supreme Court of Colorado 23 Colo. 33, 46, p. 112, 1896 Colo.). To the credit
of the Colorado court, it did not find that such tame pigeon shoots met the test of “worthy motive”
or “reasonable object.” Even today, however, there are jurisdictions where tame pigeon shoots and
“canned hunts” do not violate the anti-cruelty laws.
It is certainly true that cruelty to animals is closely linked to psychopathic behavior—animal
cruelty, along with fire starting and bed-wetting, are signs of future psychopaths. The majority of
children who shoot up their schools have early histories of animal abuse, as do 80% of the violent
80 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

offenders in Leavenworth Prison and most serial killers. Animal abusers often abuse wives and
children (Ascione et al., 2007). Most battered women’s shelters must make provisions for keeping
the family pet, as the abuser will hurt the animal to hurt the woman. Several studies have shown a
relationship between childhood animal cruelty and violence toward people (Miller, 2001).
However, these anti-cruelty laws conceptually provide little protection for animals. Animal
cruelty accounts for only a tiny fraction of the suffering that animals undergo at human hands.
For example, the United States produces around 9 billion broiler chickens a year, and many have
bruises and fractures or other skeleto-muscular injuries that occur during catching. Before restau-
rant companies started doing animal welfare audits, careless rough handling of chickens resulted
in 5% of the birds suffering broken wings, which is a shocking 450,000,000 birds with an injury
as severe as a broken arm. If even 1% of chickens are so injured (a ridiculously low number), then
we have 90,000,000 suffering animals there alone—there is nothing like 90,000,000 incidents of
cruelty, and those chickens are legally unprotected. In the United States, they are not even subject to
humane slaughter law! In Europe and Canada, humane slaughter laws include poultry.
In short, over the last 40 years society has come to realize the need for an ethic that expresses its
concern for all animal suffering, not just the relatively small amount resulting from deliberate cruelty.
The obvious question that presents itself is this: What has occurred during the last half century
that led to social disaffection with the venerable ethic of anti-cruelty and to strengthening of the
anti-cruelty laws, which now make cruelty a felony in almost 40 states?
In a study commissioned by USDA to answer this question, the author distinguished a variety of
social and conceptual reasons (Rollin, 1995):

1. Changing demographics and consequent changes in the paradigm for animals.

Whereas at the turn of the century, more than half the population was engaged in produc-
ing food for the rest, today only some 1.5% of the U.S. public is engaged in production
agriculture (AMC, 2003). One hundred years ago, if one were to ask a person in the street,
urban or rural, to state the words that come into their mind when one says “animal,” the
answer would doubtless have been “horse,” “cow,” “food,” “work,” etc. Today, however, for
the majority of the population, the answer is “dog,” “cat,” “pet.” Repeated studies show that
between 90 and 100% of the pet-owning population view their animals as “members of the
family” (The Acorn, 2002), and virtually no one views them as an income source. Divorce
lawyers note that custody of the dog can be as thorny an issue as custody of the children!
2. We have lived through a long period of ethical soul-searching.
For almost 50 years, society has turned its “ethical searchlight” on humans traditionally
ignored or even oppressed by the consensus ethic—blacks, women, the handicapped,
other minorities. The same ethical imperative has focused attention on our treatment of
the ­nonhuman world—the environment and animals. Many leaders of the activist animal
movement in fact have roots in earlier movements—civil rights, feminism, homosexual
rights, children’s rights, labor, etc.
3. The media has discovered that “animals sell papers.”
One cannot channel-surf across normal television service without being bombarded with
animal stories, real and fictional. (A New York Times reporter recently told me that more
time on cable TV in New York City is devoted to animals than to any other subject.)
Recall, for example, the extensive media coverage a decade ago of some whales trapped in
an ice floe and freed by a Russian icebreaker. This was hardly an overflowing of Russian
­compassion. Rather, someone in the Kremlin was bright enough to realize that liberating
the whales was an extremely cheap way to score points with U.S. public opinion.
4. Strong and visible arguments by philosophers, scientists, and celebrities have been
advanced in favor of raising the status of animals (Singer, 1975; Rollin, 1981; Regan, 1983;
Sapontzis, 1987).
5. Changes in the nature of animal use demanded new moral categories.
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 81

In my view, while all of the reasons just discussed are relevant, the most important reasons are
the dramatic and precipitous changes in animal use that occurred after World War II. These changes
were, first, the huge conceptual changes in the nature of agriculture, which was discussed in Chapter
1, and second, the rise of vast amounts of animal research and testing.
Chapter 1 discussed the circumstances leading agriculture from husbandry to industry. Clearly,
those who developed modern agriculture were not motivated by cruelty. Rather, they aimed at
­providing cheap and plentiful food in the face of social, economic, and cultural changes. They did
not see the threat industrial agriculture posed to animal welfare because they assumed that what
was true in husbandry agriculture carried over to industrial agriculture; namely, that if animals were
productive, their welfare was assured. While this is true in husbandry, where all aspects of animal
needs must be met to assure productivity, it is not true of industrial agriculture, where technological
fixes such as antibiotics and vaccines allow the animals’ nature to be violated despite their remain-
ing productivity. Society eventually became aware of the new kinds of suffering—not cruelty—
engendered by modern agriculture on at least four fronts: production diseases, lack of attention to
individual animals, physical and psychological deprivation in confinement, and lack of “animal
smart” employees.
These sources of suffering are not captured by the vocabulary of cruelty. In addition, people
began to realize that biomedical and other scientific research, toxicological safety testing, uses of
animals in teaching, pharmaceutical product extraction from animals, and so on all produce far
more suffering than does overt cruelty. This suffering comes from creating disease, burns, trauma,
fractures, and the like in animals in order to study them; producing pain, fear, learned helplessness,
aggression, and other states for research; poisoning animals to study toxicity; and performing sur-
gery on animals to develop new operative procedures. In addition, the housing of research animals
engenders suffering. Indeed, it has been argued by Dr. Tom Wolfle and I that the discomfort and
suffering experienced by animals used in research by virtue of being housed under conditions that
are convenient for us, but inimical to their biological natures—for example, keeping rodents, which
are nocturnal, burrowing creatures, in polycarbonate crates under artificial, full-time light—far
exceed the suffering produced by invasive research protocols.
Now it is clear that farmers and researchers are not intentionally cruel—they are motivated
by plausible and decent intentions: To cure disease, advance knowledge, ensure product safety,
provide cheap and plentiful food. Nonetheless, they may inflict great amounts of suffering on the
animals they use. Furthermore, the traditional ethic of anti-cruelty and the laws expressing it had no
vocabulary for labeling such suffering because researchers were not maliciously intending to hurt
the animals. Indeed, this is eloquently marked by the fact that the cruelty laws exempt animal use
in science and standard agricultural practices from their purview. Therefore, a new set of concepts
beyond cruelty and kindness was needed to discuss the issues associated with burgeoning research
animal use and industrial agriculture.
Given that the old anti-cruelty ethic did not apply to animal research or confinement agriculture,
society needed new ethical concepts to express its concern about these new uses. However, ethical
concepts do not arise ex nihilo.
Plato taught us a very valuable lesson about effecting ethical change. If one wishes to change
another person’s—or society’s—ethical beliefs, it is much better to remind than it is to teach. In
other words, if you and I disagree ethically on some matter, it is far better for me to show you that
what I am trying to convince you of is already implicit—albeit unnoticed—in what you already
believe. Similarly, we cannot force others to believe as we do; we can, however, show them that
their own assumptions, if thought through, lead to a conclusion different from what they currently
entertain. These points are well exemplified in twentieth century U.S. history. Prohibition was an
attempt to forcefully impose a new ethic about drinking on the majority by the minority. As such, it
was doomed to fail, and in fact, people drank more during Prohibition.
So society was faced with the need for new moral categories and laws that reflect those catego-
ries in order to deal with animal use in science and agriculture and to limit the animal suffering
82 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

with which it is increasingly concerned. At the same time, recall that western society has gone
through almost 50 years of extending its moral categories for humans to people who were morally
ignored or invisible—women, minorities, the handicapped, children, citizens of Third-World coun-
tries. As noted earlier, new and viable ethics do not emerge ex nihilo. Therefore, a plausible and
obvious move is for society to continue in its tendency and attempt to extend the moral machinery
it has developed for dealing with people, appropriately modified, to animals. This is precisely what
has occurred. Society has taken elements of the moral categories it uses for assessing the treatment
of people and is in the process of modifying these concepts to make them appropriate for deal-
ing with new issues in the treatment of animals, especially their use in science and confinement
agriculture.
What aspect of our ethic for people is being so extended? One that is, in fact, quite applicable to
animal use, is the fundamental problem of weighing the interests of the individual against those of
the general welfare. Different societies have provided different answers to this problem. Totalitarian
societies opt to devote little concern to the individual, favoring instead the state or whatever their
version of the general welfare may be. At the other extreme, anarchical groups such as communes
give primacy to the individual and very little concern to the group—hence they tend to enjoy only
transient existence. In our society, however, a balance is struck. Although most of our decisions are
made to the benefit of the general welfare, fences are built around individuals to protect their fun-
damental interests from being sacrificed to the majority. Thus, we protect individuals from being
silenced even if the majority disapproves of what they say; we protect individuals from having their
property seized without recompense even if such seizure benefits the general welfare; we protect
individuals from torture even if they have planted a bomb in an elementary school and refuse to
divulge its location. We protect those interests of the individual that we consider essential to being
human, to human nature, from being submerged, even by the common good. Those moral/legal
fences that so protect the individual human are called rights and are based on plausible assumptions
regarding what is essential to being human.
It is this notion to which society in general is looking in order to generate the new moral
notions necessary to talk about the treatment of animals in today’s world, where cruelty is not
the major problem but where such laudable, general human welfare goals as efficiency, produc-
tivity, ­k nowledge, medical progress, and product safety are responsible for the vast majority of
animal suffering. People in society are seeking to “build fences” around animals to protect the
animals and their interests and biological and psychological natures from being totally sub-
merged for the sake of the general welfare, and are trying to accomplish this goal by going to
the legislature.
It is necessary to stress here certain things that this ethic, in its mainstream version, is not
and does not attempt to be. As a mainstream movement, it does not try to give human rights to
animals. Since animals do not have the same natures and interests flowing from these natures
as humans do, human rights do not fit animals. Animals do not have basic natures that demand
speech, ­religion, or property; thus, according them these rights would be absurd. On the other
hand, animals have natures of their own and interests that flow from these natures, and the thwart-
ing of these ­interests matters to animals as much as the thwarting of speech matters to humans.
For mainstream ­society, the agenda is not making animals have the same rights as people. Rather,
it is preserving the ­common sense insight that “fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly,” and suffer if
they don’t.
This new ethic is conservative, not radical, harking back to the animal use that necessitated and
thus entailed respect for the animals’ natures. It is based on the insight that what we do to animals
matters to them, just as what we do to humans matters to them, and that consequently we should
respect that mattering in our treatment and use of animals as we do in our treatment and use of
humans. Moreover, since respect for animal nature is no longer automatic as it was in traditional
husbandry agriculture, society is demanding that it be encoded in law. Significantly, in 2004, no
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 83

fewer than 2100 bills pertaining to animal welfare were proposed in U.S. state legislatures. More
than 90 law schools now teach animal law. The same point is evidenced by the referenda at state
level abolishing sow stalls, battery cages, and veal crates.
About animal agriculture, the pastoral images of animals grazing on pasture and moving freely
are iconic. As the 23rd Psalm indicates, people who consume animals wish to see the animals live
decent lives, not lives of pain, distress, and frustration. It is for this reason in part that industrial agri-
culture conceals the reality of its practices from a naïve public—witness Perdue’s advertisements
about raising “happy chickens,” or the California “happy cow” ads. As ordinary people ­discover the
truth, they are shocked. When I served on the Pew Commission and other commissioners had their
first view of sow stalls, many were in tears and all were outraged.
Just as our use of people is constrained by respect for the basic elements of human nature,
people wish to see a similar notion applied to animals. Animals, too, have natures, what I call
telos ­following Aristotle—the “pigness of the pig,” the “cowness of a cow.” Pigs are “designed” to
move about on soft loam, not to be in gestation crates. If this no longer occurs naturally, as it did
in ­husbandry, people wish to see it legislated. This is the mainstream sense of “animal rights,” an
attempt to restore fairness and husbandry to the use of animals in agriculture.
As property, strictly speaking, animals cannot have legal rights. However, a functional ­equivalent
to rights can be achieved by limiting property rights. When others and I drafted the U.S. federal
laws for laboratory animals, we did not deny that research animals were the property of researchers.
We merely placed limits on the use of their property. I may own my car, but that does not mean I
can drive it on the sidewalk or at any speed I choose. Similarly, our law states that if one hurts an
animal in research, one must control pain and distress. Thus, research animals can be said to have
the right to have their pain controlled.
In the case of farm animals, people wish to see their basic needs and nature, teloi, respected in
the systems in which they are raised. Since this no longer occurs naturally as it did in husbandry, it
must be imposed by legislation or regulation. A Gallup poll conducted in 2003 shows that 75% of
the public wants legislated guarantees of farm animal welfare. This is what I call “animal rights as
a mainstream phenomenon.” Legal codification of rules of animal care respecting animal telos is
thus the form animal welfare takes where husbandry has been abandoned.
Thus, in today’s world, the ethical component of animal welfare prescribes that the way we raise
and use animals must embody respect and provision for their psychological needs and natures. It is,
therefore, essential that industrial agriculture phase out those systems that cause animal suffering
by violating animals’ natures and replace them with systems respecting their natures.

REFERENCEs
The Acorn. 2002. Survey says pets are members of the family. January 31.
Ascione, F.R., Weber, C.V., Thompson, T.M., Heath, J., Maruyama, M., and Hayashi, K. 2007. Battered pets
and domestic violence: Animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by nonab-
used women, Violence Against Women, 13: 354–373.
CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 1981. Scientific Aspects of the Welfare of Food
Animals, Report #91.
Miller, C. 2001. Childhood animal cruelty and interpersonal violence, Clinical Physiological Review, 21:
735–749.
Pew Charitable Trusts. 2008. Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, PCIFAP.
org.
Regan, T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Rollin, B. 1981. Animal Rights and Human Morality. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Rollin, B. 1995. Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical and Research Issues. Ames, IA: Iowa State University
Press.
Sapontzis, S. 1987. Morals, Reason and Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation. New York: New York Review Press.
84 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

SECOND VIEWPOINT: FROM A SUSTAINABILITY

AND PRODUCT QUALITY PERSPECTIVE
Donald M. Broom
INTRODUCTiON
The scientific study of animal welfare has developed rapidly in recent years. The concept is defined
here and its relationship with other concepts, such as health, stress, and needs, is discussed.
The welfare of animals is a matter of substantial public concern and is an aspect of our deci-
sions about whether animal usage systems are sustainable. A system that results in poor welfare is
unsustainable because it is unacceptable to many people. The various criteria for sustainability are
briefly discussed. The quality of animal products is now judged in relation to the ethics of produc-
tion, including impact on the welfare of the animals, as well as on price, taste, and consequences
for consumers.
Animal welfare is a term that describes a potentially measurable quality of a living animal at a
particular time and hence is a scientific concept. It requires strict definition if it is to be used effec-
tively and consistently. A clearly defined concept of welfare is needed for use in precise scientific
measurements, in legal documents, and in public statements or discussion. Welfare refers to a char-
acteristic of the individual animal rather than something given to the animal by people (Duncan,
1981). Broom (1986) defined the welfare of an individual as its state as regards its attempts to cope
with its environment. It has been emphasized (Duncan, 1981; Broom, 1988, 1991a,b; Broom and
Johnson, 2000; Fraser, 2008) that welfare can be measured scientifically, independently of any
moral considerations. Once the welfare has been objectively assessed, ethical decisions can be taken
about what is to be done about it. This definition of welfare refers to a characteristic of the individual
at the time, that is, how well it is faring (Broom and Fraser, 2007; Broom, 2008). This state of the
individual will vary on a scale from very good to very poor. Welfare will be poor if there is dif-
ficulty in coping or failure to cope so that the individual is harmed. One or more coping strategies
may be used to attempt to cope with a particular challenge so a wide range of measures of welfare
may be needed to assess welfare.
Feelings, such as pain, fear, and pleasure, are often a part of a coping strategy and they are a
key part of welfare (Duncan and Petherick, 1991; Broom, 1991b, 1998). They are adaptive aspects
of an individual’s biology that must have evolved to help in survival just as aspects of anatomy,
physiology, and behavior have evolved. Fear and pain can play an important role in the fastest acting
urgent coping responses, such as avoidance of predator attack or risk of immediate injury. Positive
and negative feelings, as well as other brain processes that involve no affect, are among the causal
factors determining what decisions are taken in longer time-scale coping procedures, where various
risks to the fitness of the individual are involved. Aspects of suffering also contribute significantly
to how the individual tries to cope in attempts to deal with very long-term problems that may harm
the individual. In the organization of behavior to achieve important objectives, pleasurable feelings
and the expectation that these will occur have a substantial influence.
Coping with pathology is necessary if welfare is to be good so health is an important part of the
broader concept of welfare, not something separate (Dawkins, 1980; Webster, 1994; Broom, 2006;
Broom and Fraser, 2007). However, health is not all of welfare, as those with a medical or veterinary
background have sometimes assumed. Health is the state of the individual as regards its attempts
to cope with pathology. This refers to body systems, including those in the brain, which combat
pathogens, tissue damage, or physiological disorder.
When considering how to assess the welfare of animals, it is necessary to start with knowledge
of the biology of the animal and of all of its needs. It is important to be aware that needs have a
biological basis, but this does not mean that degree of naturalness is a part of the definition of wel-
fare (Fraser, 2008). Some events that occur in nature, such as starvation or predation, result in very
poor welfare. The needs of individuals will vary according to genotype and will be affected by
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 85

conditions during development. It is more useful to consider the needs of animals of a given species,
using scientific information about them, than to use the vaguer concept of freedoms.
The word “stress” should be used for the part of poor welfare that involves failure to cope, as the
common public use of the word refers to a deleterious effect on an individual (Broom and Johnson,
2000). Reference to stress as just a stimulation that could be beneficial, or as an event that elicits
adrenal cortex activity, is of no scientific or practical value. One indicator of adversity is whether
there is an effect on biological fitness. Stress can be defined as an environmental effect on an indi-
vidual that over-taxes its control systems and reduces its fitness or seems likely to do so. Using this
definition, the relationship between stress and welfare is very clear. First, while welfare refers to a
range in the state of the animal from very good to very poor, whenever there is stress welfare is poor.
Second, stress refers only to situations in which there is failure to cope, but poor welfare refers to the
state of the animal, both when there is failure to cope and when the individual is having ­difficulty
in coping.
In the early 1990s and later, Broom’s definition was referred to by some as a functional defini-
tion and was contrasted with the feelings-related definition of Duncan (see also Broom, 2008).
Duncan argued that welfare is wholly about feelings (e.g., Duncan and Petherick, 1991). A more
common position was that of Dawkins (1990), who stated that the feelings of the individual are the
central issue in welfare but other aspects such as the health of that individual are also important. As
explained earlier, feelings are biological mechanisms that form part, but not all, of the set of cop-
ing systems. The term welfare means essentially the same as well-being but, in most of the world,
welfare is used as the scientific term.

SUsTAiNAbiliTY
A central question, when decisions are made about whether a system for exploiting resources should
be used, is whether the system is sustainable (Aland and Madec, 2009). The fact that something
is profitable and there is a demand for the product is not sufficient reason for the continuation of
production. A system or procedure is sustainable if it is acceptable now and if its effects will be
acceptable in future, in particular in relation to resource availability, consequences of functioning,
and morality of action (Broom, 2001, 2010). A system might not be sustainable for several possible
reasons. For animal usage systems, examples of such reasons are: (1) because it involves so much
depletion of a resource that it will become unavailable to the system, (2) because a product of the
system accumulates to a degree that prevents the functioning of the system, or (3) because members
of the public find an action involved in it unacceptable. Where there is depletion of a resource or
accumulation of a product, the level at which this is unacceptable, and hence the point at which
the system is unsustainable, is usually considerably lower than that at which the production system
itself fails. Other reasons for unacceptability are exemplified in the following. A system could be
unsustainable because of harms to the perpetrator, other people, the environment, or other animals
(Table 5.1).
No system or procedure is sustainable if a substantial proportion of the local or world public finds
aspects of it now, or of its consequences in the future, morally unacceptable. Each of the examples
in Table 5.2 is unsustainable. Adverse effects on people or animals can be reported in the media
around the world and there are now consequences of unacceptable practices in manufacturing, ani-
mal production, or other human activities because of increased efficiency of communication.
Media reports of activities or events that the public find unacceptable may result in consumers in
many countries refusing to buy animal and other products from the companies or countries involved
(Table 5.3; Broom 2002).
Consumers drive legislation and retail company codes of practice for animal production (Bennett,
1994; Bennett, Anderson, and Blaney, 2002). Legislation on animal welfare has developed in the
European Union and in many countries because of pressure from voters (Broom 2002, 2009). In
general, the standards of retail companies have a substantially greater effect on the welfare of farm
86 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

TABLE 5.1
Reasons for Lack of Sustainability of a System
1. Resource depletion to a level that is unacceptable
to a level that prevents system function
2. Product accumulation to a level that people detect and find unacceptable
to a level that affects other systems in an unacceptable way
to a level that affects the system itself, perhaps blocking its function
3. Other effect to a level that is unacceptable
The consequences of acts or of system functioning (in 1, 2, and 3) could be unacceptable because of immediate or later:
[a] Harm to the perpetrator: resource loss or poor welfare
[b] Harm to other humans: resource loss
[c] Harm to other humans: poor welfare
[d] Harm to other animals: poor welfare
[e] Harm to the environment including that of other animals.

Modified after Broom, 2010.

TABLE 5.2
Unsustainability — Categories of Unacceptable Harms and Examples That Led to
Headlines in Newspapers
1. Harm to perpetrator: Resource loss or poor welfare
[a] System for energy production uses more energy than it produces.
[b] Machinery for process made of poor quality materials so injury to working person likely.
[c] Toxic insecticide spread on fields — spreaders poisoned by insecticide in China.
2. Harm to other humans: Resource loss
[a] F actory/agricultural system outflow into lake or river — fishing industry lost because of the pollution by manure
of a river in Thailand.
[b] Heavy metals from industry — reduces farm production.
[c] Radiation from energy production system — reduces farm production.
3. Harm to other humans: Poor welfare
[a] Dioxin released from factory — people become sick, some die.
[b] Cheap cattle protein fed to other cattle — bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle and people catching
new-variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease by eating beef in the U.K. Also, consumer health risk from slaughtered sick
cattle in United States.
[c] Work that is too demanding — some workers become injured, depressed, or psychotic.
4. Harm to other, nonhuman, animals: Poor welfare
[a] Traditional entertainment for people, for example, bull-fight, dog-fight, cock-fight, bear-bait, throw goat off church
tower.
[b] Use leg-hold trap for pests or fur-bearing animals.
[c] Veal production from calves kept in small crates and fed only milk.
[d] Sheep on an Australian ship dying in large numbers en route to Saudi Arabia.
[e] Slaughterhouse cruelty in the United States.
[f] Chickens killed by inhumane methods during avian influenza control in Indonesia.
5. Harm to environment including that of other animals
[a] Use of CFCs in refrigerators — ozone layer damage.
[b] Use of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides — birds, which are insectivores, or top predators killed or unable to
reproduce.
[c] Produce too much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — global warming.

Modified after Broom, 2010.

Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 87

TABLE 5.3
Examples of Actions that Led to Consumers Refusing to Buy Products
Action Reported by Media Consequences
Dolphins being killed in nets set for tuna. The sales of tuna dropped sharply. This was a long-term effect
and resulted in a permanent change in fishing practices.
In France, poor welfare of calves kept in In U.K., a drop in the sales of all French products, including
small crates for veal production. unrelated products such as wine. For most consumers, this was
temporary but for some it continued until the introduction of
European Union legislation banning the production of veal
using crate-housing and low iron and low fiber diets.
The death of thousands of sheep on an In several countries, a temporary drop in sales of Australian
Australian ship going to Saudi Arabia. products.
Very low payments to poor coffee farmers in Temporary and permanent loss of customers at coffee shop
Third World countries supplying a coffee chain.
shop chain reported in many countries.
Rainforest destruction for beef production for A drop in sales of company in many countries. Some permanent
restaurant company. loss of customers.
Cruelty to poultry in slaughterhouse shown Temporary reduction in poultry sales.
in one television program and cruelty to Reduction in beef consumption, duration not known.
cattle in another. A few people respond to information about poor welfare in
animals by becoming vegetarian but a much larger number
make some changes to their food purchasing practices.

animals than legislation. The codes of practice of food companies have international impact. For
example, many pig producers in Brazil have to comply with the animal welfare standards of United
Kingdom supermarkets in order to sell to them, and egg producers in Thailand have to rear their
birds according to the standards of the increasing numbers of U.S. food chain companies who have
animal welfare standards.

WHAT Is FOOD PRODUCT QUAliTY?

The idea of quality for the goods that people buy has changed in the last 10 to 20 years. Quality
formerly referred to immediately observable aspects, that is, for an animal food product, its visual
qualities and taste. These aspects of quality are still important, and expectations about taste are
tending to become more refined, but other factors are now becoming incorporated into what
­constitutes good quality. Consumption has consequences and a higher proportion of these are now
considered. If a food causes people to become sick, the quality is considered poor. If the food tends
to make you fat, for some people the quality is considered poor. If food has added nutrients, some
consider the quality better. In addition, a major recent change is that the ethics of the production
method are taken into account. Factors considered by purchasers include: (1) the welfare of the
animals used in production, (2) any impact on the environment, including conservation of wildlife,
(3) ensuring a fair payment for producers, especially in poor countries, (4) the preservation of rural
communities so that the people there do not go to live in towns, and (5) the carbon footprint of each
product as factors leading to global warming are now high on the agenda of many discriminating
consumers.
If food is not safe, in that it contains damaging levels of toxins or pathogens, most consumers
will never buy it no matter how cheap it is. Individual food production companies are expected to
be responsible for this aspect of food quality, but the public expects their government to ensure that
adequate standards and adequate checking systems exist. National governments have fallen and
companies have gone bankrupt because of known failure on this issue.
88 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

In parallel with the FDA in the United States, in the European Union the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA) has been set up. A difference from the FDA is that (1) many aspects of sustain-
ability are part of the work of EFSA and (2) the major part of its work is done by independent
scientists, appointed solely on scientific expertise and not as representatives of countries or interest
groups. In producing scientific reports, a significant part of their work is the assessment of risks
and benefits. The subject area covered by EFSA is wide, reflecting the public concern. One panel
deals with animal disease and animal welfare. The reports that it produces has led to changes in
EU legislation and scientifically based standards in Europe and elsewhere in the world. A scientific
committee producing reports on animal welfare is of value in any major country. Measures to check
that there is compliance with legislation exist in the member states of the EU and in other countries,
such as the United States with regard to food content.
In order that the ethics of the production method can be properly taken into account, products
must be traceable. If foods can be traced, it is less likely that toxins, other poor quality materials, or
pathogens will be in them. If animals can be traced, the sources of animal disease outbreaks are more
likely to be found and places where injuries or other causes of poor welfare occurred are more likely
to be found (Broom, 2007). Legislation and industry initiatives ensuring traceability are important.

AsPECTs OF SUsTAiNAbiliTY AND PRODUCT QUAliTY

Consumers will refrain from purchasing animal products if they judge that the production proce-
dures are unsustainable and thus not of good quality. The quality may be judged poor based on
negative effects of the production or the product on human health, human diet, the acceptability of
genetic modification, animal welfare, environmental effects such as pollution, conservation and car-
bon footprint, the efficient use of world food resources, fair trade, that is, considering poor produc-
ers, and preserving rural communities. Each of these factors, now an aspect of both product quality
and the sustainability of the production method, is considered here.

Human Disease Resulting from a Food Product, Sustainability, and Product Quality
Some examples of human health issues that affect views of product quality are Salmonella in eggs and
meat, Campylobacter in chicken carcasses, and avian influenza (H5N1 or H1N1) and bovine spongi-
form encephalopathy (BSE) in beef products. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the British government
failed to initiate measures that would prevent the large-scale mortality of people from new-variant
Creutzfeldt Jacob Disease (CJD) if they ate meat products from animals with BSE. Luckily, for the
British public, the number dying is likely to be a few thousand rather than hundreds of thousands.
Eventually, with scientific expertise from EU committees, an appropriate policy was developed. The
one good consequence of this has been the development of the risk assessment approach in dis-
ease management and in animal welfare in Europe. However, the subsequent unwillingness of other
­governments, faced with an unknown amount of BSE, to damage their beef production industries is
disturbing. Recent actions in the United States make it clear that cattle showing abnormal locomotion
and other behavior on arrival at the slaughterhouse must still be considered a BSE risk.

Human Diet, Sustainability, and Product Quality

In recent years, there have been large effects on animal production because of concern about human
diet. In particular, saturated fats increase risks of heart disease and farm livestock are a major
source. Because of the benefits of consuming fish oils, fish production is increasing rapidly. The
production of fish that consume vegetable matter, rather than predators like salmonids, which have
to be fed mainly fish products, is likely to increase the most because much of the fish product fed
to the salmonids could have been consumed by humans and less resource wastage occurs if the fish
are herbivorous. The value of farmed fish production is already larger than that of open water fish
production, and the weight of farmed fish will be greater than that of fish from open water within
a few years.
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 89

Genetic Modification, Sustainability, and Product Quality

In some countries, genetically modified plants are not accepted because of ethical concerns, the issue
being whether living things should be modified in the laboratory as opposed to genetic changes that
occur naturally. There is also concern because protein changes can cause allergies. Genetic modi-
fications in animals can benefit the animals (e.g., confer disease resistance), help to treat human
disease (e.g., a blood clotting factor in the milk of a sheep), develop new products for other purposes,
or increase efficiency of animal production. Some people accept all of these but ­others accept some
or none as sufficient justification for genetic modification. A major reason for this is that, in some
cases, animal welfare may be poorer because of the modification. The conclusion of many people is
that any production of genetically modified animals should occur only if it has been demonstrated
by scientific studies of animal welfare that the welfare of the animals is not poorer than that of
unmodified animals.

Animal Welfare, Sustainability, and Product Quality

Poor welfare of animals that are used in the production system is a major reason why the public
regards some animal production systems as unacceptable. Hence, these systems become unsustain-
able unless there is some modification to them. Animal welfare is becoming more important to
members of the public as a reason for demanding change from farmers, food retail companies, and
governments. Members of the European Parliament receive more letters about animal welfare than
about any other subject (Broom, 1999). However, most people think about animal welfare issues
infrequently, unless their attention is drawn to it by media coverage. When the information is drawn
to public attention, there is a point at which the welfare of the animals becomes so poor that the
majority consider the system to be unacceptable. Hence, animal welfare and public attitudes toward
it must be considered wherever the sustainability of an animal production system is evaluated. In
order to produce laws or codes of practice, scientific evidence is needed.

Conservation, Carbon Footprint, Sustainability, and Product Quality

A major harm that results from agriculture is that it normally reduces biodiversity as compared with
the original natural vegetation. Where wild or semi-wild areas are cleared for animal production,
substantial harm can be done to populations of animals and plants. Hence, some animal production
is not considered acceptable and products are not bought because these harms have been done. One
solution to this problem, for animals that currently consume pasture plants, is to keep the animals in
areas where they can browse on bushes and trees as well as grazing (Murgueitio et al., 2009, 2010).
A second solution is the creation of significant areas of nature reserve, as demanded by the
public in most countries. Preservation of wildlife can sometimes result in greater income through
eco-tourism than would have been possible by farming. The purchase of land to conserve natural
resources can often stimulate local economies and lead to a sense of regional pride that would not
have existed if low-level animal production had continued. A further example of a possible adverse
impact of animal production on conservation is the inappropriate use of antimicrobials and other
medicines. The numbers of several species of vultures in India have declined by 96.8 to 99.9% in 15
years (Prakash et al., 2007). This is a consequence of poisoning by the pain killer Diclofenac and
the Indian government has recently banned its use (Pain et al., 2008).
Mismanagement of resources and production of effluents that can result in contamination of
water supplies, loss of plant nutrients, greenhouse gas production, and increased human disease
are also a cause of unsustainability. The animal producer should pay any costs of environmental
­pollution and, wherever possible, animal waste should be efficiently recycled.

Efficient Use of World Food Resources, Sustainability, and Product Quality

Many people consider that the inefficient use of world food resources is unsustainable. However,
animal production activities can be changed to exploit existing resources. Some animals used for
90 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

food production can eat food that humans cannot eat (see Chapter 13). Hence, keeping grazers
and browsers will often be more advantageous than raising pigs or poultry, since the latter do
compete with humans for food. There will be energy loss if we eat animals that consume food
that we could have eaten. There is also an effect on greenhouse gas production because carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases are emitted in the course of production of animals such as
poultry and pigs, for example because of the combustion of materials in the course of food pro-
duction and the transport of food and animals. The advantage of using grazers or browsers can be
weighed against any adverse consequences for greenhouse gas emissions of methane production
by ruminants.

Fair Trade, Preserving Rural Communities, Sustainability, and Product Quality

Many traditions and ways of life for people are associated with animal agriculture. Many human
communities exist as they do because of particular animal production systems. If that ­production is
changed so that the number of farms is greatly reduced in the original areas, or the whole ­production
system is moved away from those areas, there are social and environmental ­consequences. The
destruction of rural communities is thus another factor that is taken into account by those ­considering
whether animal production systems are sustainable (see Chapter 6). A central aim of the EU’s Common
Agricultural Policy was to preserve rural communities and to reduce the number of people who leave
country areas and move to large cities, thus increasing their size. That policy has been ­successful in
minimizing such movement and some U.S. government agricultural ­policies that prevented the prices
of certain agricultural goods from falling to a low level have had this effect. In many other countries,
in contrast, cities have become much bigger and rural communities have declined or disappeared.
Similar destruction of rural communities has occurred where the number of people employed on
farms has been drastically reduced because machinery, often with high consumption of energy, has
replaced the people. When all of the real costs of agriculture are evaluated properly, major changes
will ensue. Areas for change include the welfare of ­agricultural animals, energy usage, conservation
of natural environments, the welfare of human consumers and agricultural workers, and the preser-
vation of rural communities. Sustainable agriculture is the only way forward.

REFERENCEs
Aland, A. and Madec, F., Eds. 2009. Sustainable Animal Production. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic
Publishers.
Bennett, R.M., Ed. 1994. Valuing Farm Animal Welfare. Reading, PA: University of Reading.
Bennett, R.M., Anderson, J., and Blaney, R.J.P. 2002. Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning
farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 15: 187–202.
Broom, D.M. 1986 Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142: 524–526.
Broom, D.M. 1988. The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behavior Science 20: 5–19.
Broom, D.M. 1991a. Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175.
Broom, D.M. 1991b. Assessing welfare and suffering. Behavioral Processes 25:117–123.
Broom, D.M. 1998. Welfare, stress and the evolution of feelings. Advances in the Study of Behavior 27:
371–403.
Broom, D.M. 1999. Welfare and how it is affected by regulation. In: Regulation of Animal Production in
Europe, M. Kunisch and H. Ekkel, Eds. Darmstadt: K.T.B.L., pp. 51–57.
Broom, D.M. 2001. The use of the concept Animal Welfare in European conventions, regulations and direc-
tives. Food Chain 2001. Uppsala: SLU Services. pp. 148–151.
Broom, D.M. 2002. Does present legislation help animal welfare? Landbauforschung Völkenrode 227: 63–69.
Broom, D.M. 2003. The Evolution of Morality and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Broom, D.M. 2006. The evolution of morality. Applied Animal Behavior Science 100: 20–28.
Broom, D.M. 2007. Traceability of food and animals in relation to animal welfare. In: Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Traceability of Agricultural Products. EMBRAPA: Brasilia.
Broom, D.M. 2008. Welfare assessment and relevant ethical decisions: key concepts. Annual Review of
Biomedical Science 10: T79–T90.
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 91

Broom, D.M. 2009. Animal welfare and legislation. In: Welfare of Production Animals: Assessment and
Management of Risks, F. Smulders and B.O. Algers, Eds. Wageningen: Wageningen Pers., pp. 341–354.
Broom, D.M. 2010. Animal Welfare: An aspect of care, sustainability, and food quality required by the public.
Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 37, 83–88.
Broom, D.M. and Fraser, A.F. 2007. Domestic Animal Behavior and Welfare, 4th ed. Wallingford: CABI.
Broom, D.M. and Johnson, K.G. 2000. Stress and Animal Welfare. Dordrecht: Kluwer/Springer (first published
Chapman and Hall 1993).
Dawkins, M.S. 1980. Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. London: Chapman and Hall.
Dawkins, M.S. 1990. From an animal’s point of view: Motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 13, 1–61.
Duncan, I.J.H. 1981. Animal rights — animal welfare, a scientist’s assessment. Poultry Science 60: 489–499.
Duncan, I.J.H. and Petherick, J.C. 1991. The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. Journal
of Animal Science 69: 5017–5022.
Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in Its Cultural Context. Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Murgeitio, E., Calle, Z., Uribe, F., Calle, A., and Solorio, B. 2010. Native trees and shrubs for the produc-
tive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. Forest Ecology and Management doi:10.1016/j.
foreco.2010.09.027.
Murgueitio, E., Cuartas C., and Naranjo J., Eds. 2009. Ganadería del Futuro: Investigación para el Desarrollo.
Segunda edición. Cali, Colombia: Fundación CIPAV.
Pain, D.J., Bowden, C.G.R., Cunningham, A.A., Cuthbert, R., Das, D., Gilbert, M., Jakati, R.D., Jhala, Y.,
Khan, A.A., Naidoo, V., Oaks, J.L., Parry-Jones, J., Prakash, V., Rahmani, A., Ranade, S.P., Baral, H.S.,
Sanacha, K.R., Saravanan, S., Shah, N., Swan, G., Swarup, D., Taggart, M.A., Watson, R.T., Virani,
M.Z., Wolter, K., and Green, R. 2008. The race to prevent the extinction of South Asian vultures. Bird
Conservation International, 18: S30–S48.
Prakash, V., Green, R.E., Pain, D.J., Ranade, S.P., Saravanan, S., Prakash, N., Venkitachalam, R., Cuthbert, R.,
Rahmani, A.R., and Cunningham, A.A. 2007. Recent changes in populations of resident Gyps vultures in
India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 104: 129–135.
Webster, J. 1994. Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye towards Eden. Oxford: Blackwell.

THIRD VIEWPOINT: UNDERSTANDING ANIMAL WELFARE

FROM A RESEARCH SCIENTIST’S PERSPECTIVE*
David Fraser
INTRODUCTiON
The treatment of animals has been a topic of ethical concern since classical times (Sorabji, 1993) and
showed a major resurgence during the 1700s and 1800s in Europe and the English-speaking countries
(Harwood, 1928; Radford, 2001). In the 1900s, during the span of the two World Wars and the Great
Depression, concern about the welfare of animals seemed to take a back seat. However, as human
prosperity and security returned in the 1950s, concern about animals began to regain its former prom-
inence. Both the United States and Canada passed their first humane slaughter legislation in 1958 and
1960, respectively, and some jurisdictions added humane animal transport requirements soon after.
As long as the focus was on slaughter and transport, the nature of the concern seemed clear
enough: To protect animals from avoidable pain, distress, and injury after they left the safe confines
of the farm. Beginning in the 1960s, however, attention also turned to the relatively new “confine-
ment” systems for raising farm animals, and here the nature of the concerns was less easy to define.
As debate over these systems developed, it became apparent that different people were raising some-
what different issues, all under the umbrella term of “animal welfare.”

* This section brings together material from several of my previous publications, especially my book Understanding
Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context (Fraser, 2008), which gives a much more detailed treatment of the
issues. I am grateful to Wiley-Blackwell (Oxford) and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare for allowing me to
re-work some of that material here.
92 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

THREE ViEws OF ANimAl WElFARE

The first major criticism of confinement production systems came in the book Animal Machines, by
the English animal advocate Ruth Harrison. She described cages for laying hens and crates for veal
calves, and she claimed that these highly restrictive systems caused animals to lead miserable and
unhealthy lives. She asked:

How far have we the right to take our domination of the animal world? Have we the right to rob them of
all pleasure in life simply to make more money more quickly out of their carcasses? (Harrison, 1964)

Later, in Animal Liberation, Australian philosopher Peter Singer based his criticism of animal
production on the principle that actions should be judged right or wrong based on the pain or plea-
sure that they cause, and he claimed:

There can be no moral justification for regarding the pain (or pleasure) that animals feel as less impor-
tant than the same amount of pain (or pleasure) felt by humans. (Singer, 1990)

In these and many other criticisms of modern animal production, concerns centered around
words like “pleasure,” “pain,” “suffering,” and “happiness.” There is no simple English word to
capture this class of concepts. They are sometimes called “feelings,”but the word seems too insub-
stantial for states like pain and suffering. They are sometimes called “emotions,” but emotions do
not include states like hunger and thirst. Perhaps the most accurate (if rather technical) term is
“affective states,” a term that refers to emotions and other feelings that are experienced as either
pleasant or unpleasant rather than hedonically neutral.
In discussing confinement systems, however, some people put the main emphasis elsewhere.
A British committee that was formed to evaluate the issues raised by Ruth Harrison concluded:

In principle we disapprove of a degree of confinement of an animal which necessarily frustrates most

of the major activities which make up its natural behaviour. (Brambell, 1965)

Astrid Lindgren, the famous author of the Pippi Longstocking stories and a driving force behind
animal welfare reform in Sweden, proposed:

Let [farm animals] see the sun just once, get away from the murderous roar of the fans. Let them get to
breathe fresh air for once, instead of manure gas. (Anonymous, 1989)

American philosopher Bernard Rollin (1993) insisted that we need:

… a much increased concept of welfare. Not only will welfare mean control of pain and suffering, it
will also entail nurturing and fulfilment of the animals’ natures.

In these quotations, although affective states were often involved implicitly or explicitly, the cen-
tral concern was for a degree of “naturalness” in the lives of animals: That animals should be able
to perform their natural behavior, that there should be natural elements in their environment, and
that we should respect the “nature” of the animals themselves.
All of the previous quotations reflected the views of social critics and philosophers, but when
farmers and veterinarians engaged in the debate, they brought a different focus. For example, one
veterinarian defended the early confinement systems this way:

My experience has been that ... by-and-large the standard of welfare among animals kept in the so
called ‘intensive’ systems is higher. On balance I feel that the animal is better cared for; it is certainly
much freer from disease and attack by its mates; it receives much better attention from the attendants, is
sure of shelter and bedding and a reasonable amount of good food and water. (Taylor, 1972)
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 93

On the other hand, as the veterinary educator David Sainsbury (1986) put it:

Good health is the birthright of every animal that we rear, whether intensively or otherwise.

Here the primary emphasis is on the traditional concerns of veterinarians and animal producers
that animals should have freedom from disease and injury, plus food, water, shelter, and other neces-
sities of life—concerns that we might sum up as the basic health and functioning of the animals.
In these various quotations, then, we see a variety of concerns that can be grouped roughly under
three broad headings: (1) the affective states of animals, (2) the ability of animals to lead reasonably
“natural” lives, and (3) basic health and functioning.
These are not, of course, completely separate or mutually exclusive. Allowing a pig to wallow
in mud on a hot day improves its welfare because it can use its natural cooling behavior (a natural
living criterion), because it will feel more comfortable (an affective state criterion), and because its
bodily processes will be less disrupted by heat stress (a basic health criterion).
Nonetheless, the different concerns are sufficiently independent that the pursuit of any one does
not necessarily improve animal welfare as judged by the others. An intensive pig producer may feel
that the most important elements of animal welfare are basic health and functioning as reflected by
neonatal survival, longevity of sows, rapid growth, and low incidence of disease. For such a person,
a well-run, high-health confinement unit might seem to provide the best welfare for pigs. An organic
pig producer, in contrast, may feel that for pigs to have a good life, it is most important that they are
free to live in fresh air and sunlight with ample space to roam and socialize. For such a person, a
free-range system is far better for animal welfare than any confinement unit is, even if parasites are
not as well controlled and rates of growth are lower. An animal protectionist might attach particular
importance to affective states and not be too concerned whether pigs are indoors or outdoors, so
long as fear, pain, and hunger are minimized. Thus, different beliefs about what is important for
animals to have a good life can lead to very different conclusions.
These disagreements are not, of course, disagreements about facts. The intensive producer and
the organic producer may agree on factual matters such as the rate of mortality in a herd or the
concentration of ammonia in the air. Their disagreement is about values—about what they consider
most important for animals to have good lives.
The situation can perhaps be captured by a simple Venn diagram (Figure 5.1), which serves to
summarize three points: (1) most of the concerns that people express about animal welfare can be
grouped roughly under three main headings; (2) these involve considerable but incomplete overlap;

Basic health and functioning

Affective states Natural living

FIGURE 5.1 Three conceptions of animal welfare. (Adapted from Appleby, M.C. 1999. What Should We Do
about Animal Welfare? Oxford: Blackwell Science; and Lund, V. 2006. Natural living — a precondition for
animal welfare in organic farming. Livestock Science 100: 71–83.)
94 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

and (3) the pursuit of animal welfare as defined by any one criterion does not guarantee a high level
of welfare as judged by the others.

ANimAl WElFARE AND SCiENCE

When these differences began to emerge in the debate about confinement production systems, many
people looked to scientific research as the way to decide among the different, value-based interpreta-
tions of animal welfare and thus turn the assessment of animal welfare into an objective, ­value-free
scientific process. What actually happened, however, proved to be much more interesting.
Some scientists focused on the basic health and functioning of animals as a basis for assessing
and improving animal welfare. In one classic example, Ragnar Tauson and co-workers improved
the welfare of laying hens by studying the basic health of birds in cages of different types, and
then developing cage designs that would prevent the various health problems they observed. The
scientists found that the birds developed foot lesions if the floor was too steeply sloped, and neck
lesions if the feed trough was too deep and installed too high for comfortable access. There was
often feather damage that could be reduced by using solid side partitions and overgrown claws that
could be prevented by installing abrasive strips on the cage floor. Thus, just by focusing on injuries it
was possible to make large improvements in animal welfare and, coincidentally, in the productivity
of the flock. These results formed the basis of the early animal welfare standards for cage design in
Sweden and later in the European Union (Tauson, 1998).
Other scientists tried to improve animal welfare by creating living conditions that were more nat-
ural for animals. For example, in an effort to design better housing for pigs, Alex Stolba and David
Wood-Gush began by observing pigs that had been released in a hilly, wooded area. They found that
the pigs showed certain characteristic types of behavior: They rooted in the soil; they exercised their
neck muscles by levering against fallen logs; they built nests in secluded areas before giving birth;
and they used dunging areas well removed from their resting areas. The scientists then designed
a complex commercial pen that allowed the animals to behave in these ways. It included an area
with peat moss for rooting, logs for levering, a separate dunging area, and secluded areas where a
sow could be enclosed to build a nest and farrow (Stolba and David Wood-Gush, 1984). The authors
claimed that the animals’ welfare was significantly improved by the complex pen; however, because
some aspects of basic health (especially neonatal survival) were not as good in this system as in well
run confinement systems, some people disagreed with that conclusion.
In less radical approaches, scientists have incorporated simple elements of natural behavior into
existing rearing systems. On many commercial dairy farms, calves are separated from their moth-
ers on the first day after birth, and are then fed milk by bucket, usually twice per day. This, of
course, is highly unnatural. Under natural conditions, calves would stay close to the cow for the
first two weeks, and would consume many small meals per day by sucking rather than drinking.
Although normally it is not feasible to leave calves with the cow on a diary farm, feeding systems
can still be made to correspond more closely to the animals’ natural behavior. First, if the calves
suck from an artificial teat rather than drinking from a pail, the sucking action seems to stimu-
late certain digestive processes more effectively (de Passillé, Christopherson, and Rushen, 1993).
Second, if the teat system allows the calves to feed with a more natural frequency and meal size,
then they can gain substantially more weight than calves fed twice daily by bucket (Appleby, Weary,
and Chua, 2001).
In other cases, scientists have used animal welfare research to reduce unpleasant affective states
in animals. Many dairy calves are subjected to “hot-iron disbudding.” This involves the use of a
ring-shaped iron heated to 600°C and pressed against the head of the calf to burn through the nerves
and blood vessels that would allow the horn-bud to develop. In some countries, this procedure is
commonly done without any form of pain management. A research group in New Zealand used
levels of cortisol (a stress-related hormone) in the blood as an indicator of the pain caused by disbud-
ding. They found that disbudding is followed immediately by a large increase in cortisol, but that
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 95

the reaction is blocked if calves are treated with a local anesthetic to freeze the area first. However,
the treated calves showed a later rise in cortisol level, several hours after the disbudding, probably
because the injury remained inflamed and painful when the anesthetic had worn off. This later rise
in cortisol could be eliminated by giving the calves an analgesic. Thus, the research showed that
management of the pain of disbudding requires both a local anesthetic and a longer-acting analgesic
(Stafford and Mellor, 2005).
All of the approaches described previously—some designed to improve basic health, others
incorporating natural behavior, and others focused on affective states—have been useful for identi-
fying and solving animal welfare problems. However, rather than the science providing an objective
means of arbitrating among the different views of animal welfare, the different views of animal
welfare were actually adopted by the scientists as the rationale for their scientific work. In fact, the
different views of animal welfare enriched the science by providing a wide and complementary
range of ways in which animal management could be improved, often with benefits to animal pro-
ducers as well as to the animals.

ClARiFYiNG AND APPlYiNG THE ViEws

If the science has not arbitrated among the different views of animal welfare, it has nonetheless done
a great deal to clarify the different views and put them into practice.
For one thing, science has helped clarify how “naturalness” relates to animal welfare. Clearly,
modern methods of keeping animals raise concerns because they are so unnatural, but how should
we determine what is natural for these animals? For example, because sows living outdoors ­typically
wean their young at three to four months of age, critics often assume that “natural” weaning means
delaying weaning until this late age, and that sows and litters should be left together throughout this
time. In fact, research shows that starting about 10 days after farrowing, many sows choose to spend
less and less time with their young and thus force the offspring to start using a solid diet. Hence,
although removing the piglets from the sow at two to three weeks is not natural, leaving them
­confined together in a pen for many weeks is not natural either. On this basis, “get-away” farrowing
systems have been designed that allow sows to initiate the weaning process and better prepare the
young for transition to solid food (Pajor et al., 1999).
One problem in invoking natural behavior to improve animal welfare is that natural behavior
falls, very roughly, into two types: Behavior that animals generally want to do, such as eating and
playing, and behavior that animals generally do not want to do, such as shivering in the cold and
fleeing from predators. When we encounter a type of natural behavior, how do we know in which
category it belongs?
One way is simply to ask the animals. Hens, for example, can be trained to perform “instrumen-
tal” tasks, such as pecking a key or pushing against a weighted door, for rewards such as food or the
opportunity to perform such natural behavior as dust bathing or roosting on a perch. By determining
the amount of work a bird will do to obtain a given reward, we can better understand the nature and
strength of their motivation (Duncan, 1992; Dawkins, 1998). Using such methods, it has been shown
that hens are motivated to obtain a modest space allowance (somewhat more than is provided in
standard commercial cages), a perch where they can roost at night, a nest box where they can retreat
to lay eggs, and litter for dust bathing and feather care. Based on such research, the European Union
will soon require that caged hens have some form of “furnished” environment with 750 cm2 of floor
space per bird, plus a perch, a nest-box, and litter (Appleby, 2003).
Animal welfare science has also provided many ways of using research to understand better
the affective states of animals. As one example, Francis Colpaert and co-workers have done many
­studies in which rats had the opportunity to self-administer analgesics. In one case, they gave
arthritic and non-arthritic rats a choice of drinking from two water bottles, one of which contained
sweetened water and the other a dilute but unpalatable solution of the opiate analgesic fentanyl.
Healthy rats consumed very little of the fentanyl, but arthritic rats consumed substantial amounts,
96 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

and the time course of self-administration corresponded with changes in the severity of the arthritis.
Based on this and other lines of evidence, Colpaert et al. (2001) concluded that self-administration
of fentanyl provides an objective indicator of chronic pain in rats.
Finally, science has helped to clarify the relationship between health, productivity, and animal
welfare. It is uncontroversial to say that preventing disease and injury is fundamental to animal wel-
fare, but some people have made much bolder claims. Some have proposed, for example, that “suf-
fering of any kind is reflected by a corresponding fall in productivity” (Brambell, 1965, pp. 10–11),
and that “the goal of maximum profitability pursued by animal producers (and others) leads auto-
matically to improved welfare” (CAST, 1981, p. 1). Scientific analysis has shown the need for caution
over such claims. For example, modern hens have been bred so strongly for egg production that they
will mobilize calcium from their bones to create eggshells. This can lead to significant weakness in
the leg bones and a high frequency of broken bones when the birds are removed from their cages for
slaughter (Knowles, and Wilkins, 1998). Genetic selection of beef cattle for very large muscles has
produced certain breeds whose carcasses have high commercial value, but these breeds are prone
to difficult calving and poorer calf survival, and some animals react to heat stress with an excessive
build-up of lactic acid in the muscles, sometimes to the point of paralysis (Gregory, 1998). Many
dairy cows are bred and fed for very high levels of milk production, but this is associated with a high
incidence of certain diseases and short life span (Sandøe et al., 1999). Hence, arguments linking pro-
ductivity and animal welfare need to be treated with caution, especially if genetics, diet, or hormones
have been manipulated in ways that enhance one aspect of functioning to the detriment of others.
Arguments linking animal welfare and profitability are especially suspect. Profit requires a cer-
tain level of productivity, but profit can also be increased by limiting input costs. Reducing space
allowance, staff time, bedding, veterinary care, and other amenities can help to reduce costs; and
even if these cutbacks reduce productivity to some extent, the net result may still be greater profit.
A striking example was provided by Adams and Craig (1985), who analyzed how space allowance
for hens in cages is associated with different levels of productivity and profit. Their analysis showed
that if egg prices are high and feed costs are low, profit could often be increased by adding extra
birds to a facility so that crowding is severe, even though the death rate is increased and the birds’
individual rate of egg production declines.
As we see in these examples, research and thoughtful scientific analysis can do a great deal to
improve our understanding of animal welfare. Specifically, research can show what elements of
natural behavior are important to the animals themselves; research can put the affective states of
animals on a scientific footing so that we do not just project human emotional reactions onto other
species; and scientific thinking can clarify the complex relationship between animal welfare, health,
and productivity.

CONClUDiNG REmARKs
The idea of applying science to a value-based concept may sound strange to some scientists. Surely
(they might argue) when scientists confront a new term—whether it be metabolic rate, feed effi-
ciency, or animal welfare—they should first agree on how to define the term, and then they can
measure it in a purely objective and value-free way.
In fact, many of the concepts studied by scientists incorporate values in a fundamental way.
“Food safety,” “environmental integrity,” “agricultural sustainability,” “mental health,” “animal
welfare”—each of these topics contains a word (safety, integrity, etc.) that invokes notions of better
or worse. To say that safety or integrity has increased implies not simply a change, but a change for
the better. We might call these “evaluative concepts” (Fraser, 1999). We can certainly use scientific
methods in the assessment of evaluative concepts, but the empirical work is underlain by value-
based presuppositions about what constitutes a better or worse situation.
Animal welfare is also an “everyday” concept. Unlike concepts such as atomic weight and meta-
bolic rate, which arose in science and took their meaning from science, many evaluative concepts
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 97

arose in everyday language and acquired a meaning (or meanings) in everyday life before scientists
began paying attention to them. When society calls on science to help resolve questions about ani-
mal welfare, food safety, or other topics that are the subject of everyday concern and policy-making,
the scientists need to understand and respect the everyday meanings of the concepts that they study.
If they do not—if, for example, they try to give the term a new, technical meaning that does not cor-
respond to its everyday meaning—then their conclusions may be irrelevant or (worse yet) mislead-
ing to the very issues that the scientists were trying to address.

SUmmARY
Science can make major contributions to understanding and improving animal welfare, and to find-
ing constructive solutions to animal welfare debates; but in defining animal welfare and in selecting
corresponding research methods, scientists need to be attentive to the everyday meaning of the term
and to the underlying value-based presuppositions.

REFERENCEs
Adams, A.W. and Craig, J.V. 1985. Effect of crowding and cage shape on productivity and profitability of caged
layers: A survey. Poultry Science 64: 238–242.
Anonymous. 1989. How Astrid Lindgren Achieved Enactment of the 1988 Law Protecting Farm Animals in
Sweden. Washington: Animal Welfare Institute.
Appleby, M.C. 1999. What Should We Do about Animal Welfare? Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Appleby, M.C. 2003. The EU ban on battery cages: History and prospects. In: The State of the Animals II, D.J.
Salem and A.N. Rowan, Eds. Washington: Humane Society of the United States, pp. 159–174.
Appleby, M.C., Weary, D.M., and Chua, B. 2001. Performance and feeding behaviour of calves on ad libitum
milk from artificial teats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 191–201.
Brambell, F.W.R. (chairman) 1965. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals
Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
CAST. 1981. Scientific Aspects of the Welfare of Food Animals. Report 91. Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural
Science and Technology (CAST).
Colpaert, F.C., Tarayre, J.P., Alliaga, M., Slot, L.A.B., Attal, N., and Koek, W. 2001. Opiate self-administration
as a measure of chronic nociceptive pain in arthritic rats. Pain 91: 33–45.
Dawkins, M.S. 1998. Evolution and animal welfare. Quarterly Review of Biology 73: 305–328.
de Passillé, A.M.B., Christopherson, R., and Rushen, J. 1993. Nonnutritive sucking by the calf and postprandial
secretion of insulin, CCK, and gastrin. Physiology & Behaviour 54: 1069–1073.
Duncan, I.J.H. 1992. Measuring preferences and the strength of preferences. Poultry Science 71: 658–663.
Fraser, D. 1999. Animal ethics and animal welfare science: Bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 65: 171–189.
Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Gregory, N.G. 1998. Animal Welfare and Meat Science. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Harrison, R. 1964. Animal Machines. London: Vincent Stuart Ltd.
Harwood, D. 1928. Love for Animals and How it Developed in Great Britain. Republished in 2002 as Dix
Harwood’s Love for Animals and How it Developed in Great Britain (1928). R. Preece and D. Fraser,
Eds. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.
Knowles, T.G. and Wilkins, L.J. 1998. The problem of broken bones during the handling of laying hens — a
review. Poultry Science 77: 1798–1802.
Lund, V. 2006. Natural living — a precondition for animal welfare in organic farming. Livestock Science 100:
71–83.
Pajor, E.A., Weary, D.M., Fraser, D., and Kramer, D.L. 1999. Alternative housing for sows and litters: 1. Effects
of sow-controlled housing on responses to weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 105–121.
Radford, M. 2001. Animal Welfare Law in Britain: Regulation and Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rollin, B.E. 1993. Animal welfare, science, and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6
(Suppl. 2): 44–50.
98 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Sainsbury, D. 1986. Farm Animal Welfare. Cattle, Pigs and Poultry. London: Collins.
Sandøe, P., Nielsen, B.L., Christensen, L.G., and Sørensen, P. 1999. Staying good while playing god — the
ethics of breeding farm animals. Animal Welfare 8: 313–328.
Singer, P. 1990. Animal Liberation, 2nd ed. New York: Avon Books.
Sorabji, R. 1993. Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Stolba, A. and Wood-Gush, D.G.M. 1984. The identification of behavioural key features and their incorporation
into a housing design for pigs. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 15: 287–298.
Stafford, K.J. and Mellor, D.J. 2005. Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. Veterinary
Journal 169: 337–349.
Tauson, R. 1998. Health and production in improved cage designs. Poultry Science 77: 1820–1827.
Taylor, G.B. 1972. One man’s philosophy of welfare. Veterinary Record 91: 426–428.

FOURTH VIEWPOINT: UNDERSTANDING ANIMAL

WELFARE FROM A VETERINARIAN’S PERSPECTIVE
Gail C. Golab
INTRODUCTiON
In the United States, veterinarians take an oath (AVMA, 2010) to provide for their animal patients,
while ensuring that the interests of society are met through responsible animal use.

Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowl-
edge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the
prevention and relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public
health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of
veterinary medical ethics.
I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and
competence.

Similar obligations exist and similar promises are made by veterinarians around the world
(Hewson, 2006).
In serving both animals and society, veterinarians bring a unique skill set to the table. First, most
veterinarians enter the profession because of their empathy for animals and their desire that they
are cared for properly (Sprecher, 2004; Serpell, 2005). Empathy serves as a starting point in the
examination of animal use and care. It leads to fundamental questions as to whether specific uses
of animals are necessary and appropriate, and whether related animal care practices (e.g., genetic
selection and manipulations, housing, handling, physical alterations) are important to facilitating
that use. If that is so, are they being performed with due regard for the health and other welfare
needs of individual animals and animal populations?
Second, during their training, veterinarians are provided with strong science-based knowledge
about animal health and husbandry, and are schooled in the technical and practical application of
that information. This combined skill set helps ensure that recommended approaches to animal
care are likely to improve animal health and other aspects of animal welfare and can be realistically
implemented.
Third, direct practitioner access to animals, the environments in which they are housed, and the
people who own and care for them allows observation of what is actually occurring and provides
a mechanism whereby veterinarians can actively encourage and demonstrate appropriate animal
care. Veterinarians also interact regularly with the multiple individuals indirectly responsible for
the welfare of those animals, including other scientists, policymakers in governmental agencies
(local, state/territory, national, international), advocates in the animal agricultural industries and
nongovernmental organizations, and the public.
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 99

Finally, veterinarians have tremendous credibility. A 2006 poll conducted in the United States on
professional honesty and ethics ranked veterinarians third among 23 types of professionals (Gallup,
2006). Degree of credibility may vary by society, over time, and be affected by animal-related
events; however, in general, veterinarians appear to be well respected. Credibility means that rec-
ommendations made by veterinarians are likely to be taken seriously.
Together, these attributes make veterinarians valuable advocates in assuring good animal
welfare.

WHAT Is GOOD WElFARE?

There is general agreement that good welfare means satisfying an animal’s needs, but when asked
whether a particular situation or condition in which an animal finds itself is welfare-friendly, respon-
dents, including veterinarians, may have different views.
Consider the question of whether the welfare of laying hens is better when they are kept in cages,
barns, or allowed to range freely in a field (LayWel, 2006). In cages, hens have easy access to feed
and water, individual birds are easily observed, aggressive interactions are infrequent and cannibal-
ism is minimal, and their eggs are protected and easily collected. However, in conventional cages
movement is restricted, and nest boxes and litter for dust bathing (both of which support the behav-
ioral aspects of animal welfare) generally are not provided. Laying hens raised in barns most often
have access to nest boxes and litter for dust bathing, but aggression, cannibalism, and flightiness are
other behavioral characteristics of that environment, and feed and water are less easily monitored.
Free-range systems allow great freedom of movement, usually include enclosures for sleeping and
nesting, and natural substrates are readily available that provide multiple opportunities for expression
of natural behaviors. On the other hand, laying hens in free-range systems have increased exposure
to adverse weather conditions, pests, and predators (see Chapters 4 and 8 for further discussion).
Given these trade-offs, which of the three systems described does a veterinarian recommend to
best ensure the hens’ welfare? Would that veterinarian’s colleague in the next town or state choose
the same system? Are the veterinarian’s recommendations likely to be consistent with client pref-
erences? What about the expectations of the public (which may or may not be well-informed)? As
health professionals, how veterinarians approach animal welfare will largely reflect their knowledge
of the science behind animal care and use practices and their practical experience in applying that
scientific knowledge; however, it will also depend upon their personal values, the needs and prefer-
ences of their clients, and various social influences. Veterinarians are challenged to assist in the
decision-making process, while recognizing that even they are not immune to personal prejudices
and external influences when making animal welfare decisions.

Personal Values
With respect to the laying hen example provided previously, many veterinarians are most com-
fortable with hens being kept in cages. That is because veterinarians (and many other biological
scientists and producers) tend to emphasize measures of health, growth, and productivity in their
evaluation of an animal’s welfare. The veterinarian recognizes that keeping hens in cages allows
better monitoring and control of disease, minimizes the risk of attack by the hen’s conspecifics,
protects the hen from predators, and ensures consistent provision of food and water. In other words,
the veterinarian concludes that the hen is in a good state of welfare because its health, safety, and
physical needs are met.
However, for others (including behavioral and social scientists, retailers, members of the public,
and even colleagues of the veterinarians, scientists, and producers mentioned previously), the answer
may not be so clear-cut. Fraser et al. (1997) suggested that views on animal welfare generally fall
into three categories: Individuals who emphasize basic health and function of the body; those who
are most concerned with how an animal “feels” (i.e., its psychological or affective states, such as
pain, suffering, or contentment); and those who emphasize the animal’s ability to lead a reasonably
100 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

natural life and perform behaviors in which it might normally engage. None of these views can be
classified as being inherently right or wrong, nor are they mutually exclusive. Rather, they represent
different areas of focus or emphasis. Physical and health scientists are generally most comfortable
with the functional view of animal welfare, animal behaviorists and psychologists tend to equate
good animal welfare with positive affective states, and many members of the public, particularly
those who rebel against what they perceive to be the wrongs of an industrialized society, look for
components of natural living.
Sometimes the various views of what constitutes good animal welfare go hand-in-hand. For
example, allowing a hen to nest may help it protect the integrity of its eggs (a functional criterion),
may provide some comfort (an affective state criterion), and permit it to perform a natural behavior
(a natural living criterion). Other times the various views conflict. For example, an owner feeding
his or her dog treats on a regular basis may result in the dog having a positive psychological response
and, depending on how the treats are provided, may meet its needs for exploratory or play behavior.
However, too many treats can also cause the dog to become obese. In considering the welfare of
animals, and through experience gained in practice, veterinarians soon learn the importance of bal-
ance in satisfying both their physical and psychological needs.

Experiences and Influences

While their patients are animals, veterinarians provide services for a human clientele. As such, what
veterinarians recommend will be affected by social norms, and the relationship between people and
their animals has changed dramatically over the past several decades.
Since the 1950s, there has been a shift in the American family unit from the nuclear family
(represented by a mother, father, and children with extended family often living nearby) to families
that may comprise younger or older couples with no children in the household, single parents with
children, single persons, or same-sex partners, with or without children. Grandparents, parents,
children, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews are often spread across the country. Both mothers and
fathers often work outside the home, and latchkey children are the norm rather than the exception.
Substantial traditional social support has been removed in the process and pets have filled the void
as dependable companions. Higher per capita incomes have allowed owners to treat their animal
companions more and more like the human companions they have replaced and to perceive such
treatment as normal and appropriate. Almost simultaneously, direct experiences with animals as
sources of food and fiber (i.e., functional animal uses) have been reduced. Since the 1950s, the
United States has seen a dramatic trend toward urbanization (USDA, 1995) with fewer than 2% of
the American public currently residing on farms. Together these factors put the American public
in the position of viewing all animals and expectations for their care with the same spectacles they
apply to the family dog, cat, or bird.
While the structure of families has changed, businesses have changed as well. After World
War II, the United States saw a market-driven intensification of almost all industries, including
those using animals (Colyer et al., 2001). Profit margins narrowed as production costs (especially
wages) increased and prices dropped. Economies of scale and type were discovered and trans-
lated to animal production and care. A business culture emphasizing efficiency emerged, leading to
increased specialization and economy of scale (e.g., farms became larger and shifted to a single spe-
cies and, later, to a single phase of production), contract operations, and selection for animal char-
acteristics (e.g., increased muscle mass, hardiness, susceptibility or resistance to particular diseases
[as beneficial to their particular use]) that maximize return on food, housing, and care investments.
Animal care interests correspondingly moved from a focus on the health of individual animals to an
emphasis on the health of the herd and the quality and quantity of the final product.
Most members of the American public recognize, accept, and support the need to use animals as
sources of food and fiber; however, the picture of animals as “commodities,” with an emphasis on
herd health and production, does present conflicts with their vision of animals as “family members,”
with its corresponding emphasis on the individual. Attempts to resolve this ideological conflict have
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 101

resulted in (1) closer scrutiny of traditional animal use and care practices; (2) increasing prominence
and public support of existing nongovernmental organizations focused on ensuring animal welfare,
as well as the emergence of new ones; (3) retailers and their suppliers recognizing that members of
the public can vote with their pocketbooks and acquiescing to their demands by creating business
centers focused on issues of social responsibility, including animal welfare; and (4) governmental
regulations and legal obligations directed toward aspects of animal use and abuse that the public finds
most troubling. Because of their recognized scientific and practical expertise, as well as their regular
contact with various stakeholders, veterinarians often find themselves in the challenging position of
trying to bridge gaps between those with conflicting paradigms of animal use and care, while ensur-
ing the needs of animals continue to be met. In the case of animal agriculture, veterinarians must pro-
tect the well-being of animals, assist farmers in producing sufficient product in a profitable way, and
simultaneously respect the ethical norms of how society expects animals to be used and cared for.

Applying Science
Veterinarians want to believe that decisions about animal care primarily will be based on sci-
ence. A look at the history of animal welfare decision-making, however, tells us otherwise. Science
directed at the needs and wants of animals did not actually play a substantial role in animal welfare
decision-making until the 1950s and 1960s, in concert with the publication of The Principles of
Humane Experimental Technique by Russell and Burch (revised 1992; originally published in 1959)
and the report of the Brambell Committee (1965). Concerns about animal welfare, however, have
been raised since at least the time of Aristotle and it can be argued that mythological, cultural, and
religious histories suggest an even earlier focus.
Science (and scientists) emerged as a player in the animal welfare debate when it was proposed
as a possible way to help resolve conflicting perspectives. The strongest growth in animal welfare
science has occurred since the mid-1980s, and the field is inherently inter- and multidisciplinary.
Peer-reviewed information was initially published in journals of various established fields (e.g.,
animal science, laboratory animal science, animal behavior, veterinary medicine); more recently,
animal welfare science-specific journals have been established.
Today’s veterinarian who looks to use science in the evaluation of animal welfare includes mul-
tiple parameters to ensure a complete assessment. These parameters include the animal’s biologic
function (e.g., growth, reproduction, ability to maintain homeostasis), its health (e.g., absence/pres-
ence of disease or injury), and its behavior and social functions (e.g., adaptation, emotional states
[distress, suffering], cognition/awareness, preferences). His or her assessment may look at what is
provided for the animal (also referred to as inputs, resource-based criteria, or engineering criteria)
or the effects of these inputs on welfare performance (also referred to as outputs, animal-based cri-
teria, or performance criteria). More recently, animal welfare science and its proponents, including
veterinarians, have shifted from an emphasis on easily measurable parameters (e.g., morbidity, mor-
tality, production indices) to asking questions about the animal’s perception of its own situation.
Interestingly, the basic parameters identified as being necessary components of a complete
science-based animal welfare assessment mirror the views (i.e., function, affective states, natural
living) discussed previously. The implication of this, of course, is that any data obtained may be
differentially interpreted and emphasized based on these views. Therefore, a critical review and
interpretation of the science demands the veterinarian be cognizant of the approach taken by the
researcher involved, as well as his or her own views, and consider both during interpretation and
during application. Science is almost never value-free or immune to experiential prejudice and ani-
mal welfare science and its applications are not exceptions to that truth.

CHAllENGEs FOR VETERiNARiANs

What can pose the biggest challenges for veterinarians in successfully addressing animal welfare
and the related concerns of other veterinarians, clients, businesses, policymakers, and the general
102 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

public? To find out, the author asked 50 influential individuals that question. The individuals
included veterinarians and non-veterinarians who worked in private practice, industry, not-for-profit
organizations, and governmental service, and whose views on animal welfare were diverse. Their
answers were amazingly consistent and relatively easily distilled into the following six challenges
for the veterinary profession in addressing animal welfare questions.

Professional Homogeneity
Individuals attracted to veterinary school are generally science-focused, smart, conscientious, com-
passionate, and fascinated by animals, and are able to work under conditions that can be physically
demanding (e.g., handling 1000+-lb cattle) and aesthetically (e.g., blood, animal pain or discomfort,
feces/urine) difficult. Training in veterinary school instills knowledge about the various types, uses,
and many of the practical realities of working with animals and acquaints these future veterinarians
with a variety of owners and expectations. As students, veterinarians are taught to respect species
differences and, as they mature in practice, they become very good at evaluating and predicting the
responses of animals to various situations.
However, the attributes and training that allow veterinarians to become skilled practitioners can
also create some separation from the experiences and expectations of the public. Most members
of the public have a perspective reflecting their experience with mostly companion animals and
they tend to apply that experience to everything animal-related. Veterinarians’ experiences reflect
a broader range of animals, uses, and owners, as well as a greater familiarity with animal pain and
discomfort, its trade-offs with other stressors (e.g., handling), and the resulting choices that need to
be made (e.g., restraint stress versus short-term pain). The result is that veterinarians working with
agricultural animals can find themselves defending practices, and even their own activities, which
their training and experience tells them are appropriate, but the public sees as questionable, based on
analogies the public may draw from how veterinarians approach companion animals. Conversely,
these same veterinarians may find themselves urging producers to change long-respected prac-
tices, based on new information about animals and their needs, the availability of new drugs and
equipment, and the expectations of society for animal use and care. Disconnects in experiences,
perspectives, and information are a significant challenge because veterinary medicine is a service
industry and reaching satisfactory animal welfare conclusions (particularly for animals) requires
that ­dialog and mutual understanding take place, not only between veterinarians and animal own-
ers, but between veterinarians and a more encompassing public.
Veterinarians in the United States are currently largely Caucasian and middle to upper-middle
class. This can create challenges in conveying animal welfare concerns and animal care needs
to culturally diverse populations. Such failures in communication create a potential for animal
suffering.

Professional Diversity in Service

Today’s veterinarians are functionally diverse and different veterinary practice types carry different
obligations. Companion animal practitioners focus on individual animals, and advanced medical
and surgical procedures are common as pet owners seek health care for their pets that approximates
what they seek for themselves. Companion animal owners expect a normal aging process for their
pets, accompanied by interventions for treatable conditions, followed by as natural a death as pos-
sible. Care decisions are framed by owner attachment and ability to pay, and are less affected by the
dollar value of the animal.
In contrast, veterinarians working with animals used to produce food and fiber most often focus
on population health. Individual animals may need to be sacrificed for diagnostic purposes or the
benefit of the herd or flock. Care decisions are framed by the goal of bringing a product to market
and, in this context, a natural death is often a clear failure. Advanced procedures are limited by
the market value of the animal, and some procedures traditionally performed by other types of
veterinarians may be outsourced to non-veterinarian providers. Many farm animal species, while
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 103

domesticated, are not as accustomed to handling as those species commonly kept as pets, and deci-
sions made about animal care need to consider the impact of (and ways to ameliorate) that addi-
tional stressor, as well as inherent human safety risks associated with working with large, heavy
animals.
Equine veterinarians deal with animals used for both pleasure and function. Care decisions are
often framed by the horse’s use, and return on investment can be a primary driver in the application
of advanced procedures. Laboratory animal practitioners care for animals in the context of both
individuals and groups. They may be faced with the additional challenge of research protocols that
are purposely designed to affect the health and well-being of their patients.
While veterinarians are provided with a broad-based education and exposure to all of these
areas of practice, concentrating their efforts in one segment or another will, over time, affect their
perspectives and approach to animal care.
Veterinary clients are diverse as well. They may be individual owners (e.g., pet owners, small
breeding facilities, or farms), companies or institutions (e.g., large food animal production facili-
ties, research facilities, commercial breeders), governmental agencies (e.g., public health agencies,
slaughterhouses, animal control, wildlife refuges), or nongovernmental agencies. Each of these cli-
ents has their own expectations for value in veterinary services and their definition of good (or even
acceptable) animal welfare. Correspondingly, each may have less familiarity and comfort with the
animal use and care paradigms embraced by others and may see different roles for veterinarians and
owners in defining and assuring good animal care.

Professional Diversity in Demographics

Demographic changes occurring within the profession during the past 30 years (Brown and
Silverman, 1999) have also substantively affected veterinary attitudes toward what is necessary
for good animal welfare (Narver, 2007). Fewer students with rural roots are entering the pro-
fession (Prince, Andrus, and Gwinner, 2006; Andrus, Prince, and Gwinner, 2006), fewer stu-
dents are choosing rural veterinary practice as a career (although modest increases appear to
have resulted from recent recruitment efforts; Chieffo, Kelly, and Ferguson, 2008), and there has
been an increase in the number of second-career entrants, particularly from non-science fields.
In addition, the gender shift is dramatic. In 1950, there were 139 female veterinary graduates. By
1985, more than 50% of students attending veterinary schools in the United States were female,
and it is estimated that women will comprise 67% of veterinary professionals by 2015 (Brown and
Silverman, 1999).
These demographic changes have combined to create more interest in the affective and social
components of agricultural animals’ welfare. Data show that women focus more on social concerns
and relationships (Heath and Lanyon, 1996; Paul and Podberscek, 2000; Hart and Melese-d’Hospital,
1989; Serpell, 2005; de Graaf, 2007) and animal welfare issues involve both. The perspectives of
students and new graduates reflect their urban experiences, and the pace of demographic change has
only served to increase the speed of the philosophical shift.
Functional and social diversity, not surprisingly, can create (and has created) conflicts among
the various segments (e.g., practice types, generations) of the veterinary profession. If veterinarians
in the various segments fail to consider the important insights that can be obtained from their col-
leagues, the result may be different recommendations as to what constitutes appropriate animal use
and care. Inconsistent recommendations can give the impression of a profession that is unfocused,
confused, and indecisive. In turn, this can reduce the trust of clients and the public and negatively
affect the profession’s ability to ensure that good decisions are made and appropriate care is deliv-
ered to animals.
Diversity of professional experience, however, has also been beneficial. When veterinarians with
different experiences and perspectives collaborate, the result is a comprehensive look at animal
welfare and recommendations that reflect a wealth of scientific and practical expertise and strike an
appropriate balance between the needs of animals and people.
104 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Understanding and Accepting the Role of Science

As mentioned previously, veterinarians are most comfortable when animal care decisions are sci-
ence-based. Science can be of tremendous value in helping to inform and resolve disputes in animal
welfare decision-making. However, science regarding the animal welfare implications of particular
animal care practices can be of greater or lesser quality, may not always exist, may be ignored, or
may be misrepresented and used selectively (by all sides) in related public policy debates.
While science can determine what type or degree of animal welfare risk exists with regard to a
particular animal care practice, it cannot determine what type or degree of risk is acceptable. This
social component of decision-making means that if the overwhelming perception is that a particular
animal welfare risk is unacceptable (i.e., that doing something is “wrong”), then what the science
says can become less relevant for those making the animal use/care decision. That science can be
relegated to the back seat when animal welfare decisions are made is a reality that can be difficult
for veterinarians to understand and accept.
As scientists, veterinarians are encouraged and trained to approach problems objectively.
Unfortunately, veterinarians’ efforts to be objective can sometimes give the appearance (or
­create the reality) of professional detachment. Such detachment is inconsistent with the aura of
­compassion that the public expects from those who serve as the protectors of animal welfare. As
we strive toward science-based care decisions for agricultural animals, veterinarians cannot afford
to forget that those looking for advice often do not care how much we know until they know how
much we care.
Finally, our engagement with science is sometimes a love/hate relationship. As it was put by one
respondent to my informal survey, “We’re sometimes afraid to embrace the science because it may
have implications for how we practice and what positions we may take as a profession. We make
decisions based on their scientific merit, except when we don’t like what the science says.” More
comfort with some animal welfare measures (e.g., physiologic and production indices, health status)
than others (e.g., behavior) can be a source of conflict that exacerbates any tendency we may have to
pick and choose. Incomplete application of the available science in animal welfare decision-making
is in no way unique to veterinarians; there is ample evidence that other scientists, those in the
­industries and animal advocates, have all been guilty of selective appropriation. As trusted profes-
sionals, veterinarians must make a conscious effort to seek out, acknowledge, critically examine,
and (if of good quality) embrace information from a multitude of disciplines to ensure that they
continue to deliver the best possible recommendations for animal care.

The Value of Multidisciplinary Contributions

A veterinary degree plus compassion goes a long way toward ensuring animal welfare; unfor-
tunately, it does not guarantee perfect knowledge of the subject matter nor does it mean we are
the only individuals who can or should make valued contributions. Expertise in animal welfare is
­inherently multidisciplinary and a lot of specialized information contributes to the overall animal
welfare knowledge base and the associated decision-making process. While some aspects of animal
welfare (e.g., physical health, disease prevention, and treatment) are comprehensively addressed
during veterinary medical education, other aspects (e.g., animal behavior, animal ethics) may not
be. The goal should be continued assimilation and consolidation of as much information as possible
so that the best decisions can be made.
A single animal welfare decision might take into account the animal’s physiologic state, behav-
ioral/social wellness, extent/absence of injury and disease, and adaptive potential, as well as ­ethical
considerations and political and economic realities. Just as veterinarians work to develop special
expertise in medicine, surgery, pathology, or epidemiology, they must work to develop expertise
in the animal welfare field. Fortunately, courses on animal welfare science and ­ethics are becom-
ing integral to veterinary curricula and opportunities for continuing education are expanding
rapidly.
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 105

The Actuary, the Mechanic, or the Pediatrician?

Veterinarians may assume a variety of roles when it comes to animal welfare decision-making
and choosing between those roles can be exceedingly difficult. We tend to vary between three
approaches: The actuary, the mechanic, and the pediatrician (Rollin, 2006).
When behaving as actuaries, we try to base decisions on measurements and statistics and suggest
that if we cannot measure it, we should refrain from making recommendations. Such an approach is
clearly science-based and, accordingly, carries with it little outcome and professional risk. However,
it also fails to take into account the social reality that if we do not see fit to make recommendations
in the absence of irrefutable evidence, someone else will, and perhaps from a less knowledgeable
and experienced perspective.
When we act like mechanics, we identify animal welfare problems and communicate our ­concerns
and recommendations, but ultimately acquiesce to do what those “in charge” want, ­irrespective of
what may be best for our patients. The ultimate risk resulting from this approach lies with the
animal (or society, if the resulting animal care approach is deemed unacceptable), but we assign
responsibility for that risk to another.
When we behave like pediatricians, we act like the knowledgeable advocate for the patient. This
tends to result in the best animal welfare decision-making, at least from the perspective of the ani-
mal, but it also presents the greatest risk for the veterinarian because it makes him or her subject to
owner and societal criticisms.
Some veterinarians believe their role should be limited to providing sound scientific information
about what they can measure and that advocacy (and potentially decisions) should be left to others.
Other (probably most) veterinarians agree that an appropriate role for the profession in animal wel-
fare decision-making means that, most of the time, veterinarians need to behave like pediatricians.
Behaving like a pediatrician can be difficult when we are uncomfortable with the subject matter
(due to either limitations in our knowledge base or the amorphous nature of the associated ques-
tions). We may also be put off by potentially aggressive dialog and criticism. For many veterinar-
ians, the desired “James Herriot” image is not consistent with conflict in relationships. We are
concerned about alienating other stakeholders, particularly our clients. Sometimes, like any other
human being, we may simply not like being told (or be willing to acknowledge) that we might be
wrong or what we should do.

ANimAl WElFARE iN ANimAl AGRiCUlTURE: OPPORTUNiTiEs AND ObliGATiONs

Veterinarians in all types of practice within the agricultural sector have an opportunity and an
­obligation to help animal owners, caretakers, handlers, and policymakers improve animal welfare.
Those in private clinical practice provide direct-to-owner/caretaker assistance in ensuring good
animal care. In addition to hands-on animal evaluations and care, they may raise awareness of
animal welfare concerns, deliver training in best practices, and help animal owners and caretakers
complete self-assessments of compliance with protocols and recommendations.
Consulting veterinarians may contribute to implementation of quality animal care by completing
in-depth evaluations of facilities and using the results of those evaluations to recommend standard
operating procedures and best practices. In so doing, they provide education for animal owners and
caretakers as well as compliance assurance.
Veterinary educators have a critical role to play in schooling future generations of veterinarians
in the scientific and ethical bases behind the development and adoption of appropriate animal care
practices, as well as voluntary or regulatory structures related to compliance. Others contribute to
the training of paraprofessionals, who may include members of the veterinary health care team in
private practices, as well as other technicians and caretakers, who fulfill veterinary roles and per-
form veterinary tasks when veterinarians are not directly available to do so.
Those involved in veterinary research work to resolve welfare challenges associated with existing
animal care systems and practices and, based on the results of their studies, can propose alternatives
106 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

that may better accommodate animal needs. Basic researchers can help identify animal needs and
possible approaches to meeting them in the laboratory. Applied researchers then take these pro-
posed innovations into the field to evaluate their practical application.
Veterinarians employed in governmental and nongovernmental organizations are those most
likely to help develop and certify animal care standards. Often they are assisted by multidisci-
plinary advisory bodies that may include veterinarians engaged in private or consulting prac-
tices. Such standards can then be embraced via market-driven (voluntary) or legislative/regulatory
processes.
All veterinarians have an opportunity to provide education that can build industry, market, pub-
lic, and governmental support for welfare-friendly animal care practices. In addition, veterinarians
with specific animal welfare and species expertise can serve as highly qualified, independent audi-
tors for assurance schemes. Veterinarians must not only work to implement existing standards, but
must also contribute to ensuring continual improvement of those standards. Improvement typically
comes through identification of gaps in maintaining good animal welfare and exploration of pro-
cedural changes and practice improvements that may help close those gaps. If such changes lead
to demonstrable improvements in animal welfare, and are able to be implemented practically, then
they are likely to become practices that will gain wide acceptance.

SUmmARY
Veterinarians serve both animals and society in unique ways, including empathy for animals and
science-based knowledge of animal health and husbandry.
They have an inherent responsibility to help animal owners, the public, and other stakehold-
ers understand the complexity and ramifications of animal care decisions. In addition to weighing
effects on the animals involved, establishing and implementing good care for agricultural animals
is a balancing act involving human needs (including occupational health and safety), environmental
concerns, and economics.

REFERENCEs
American Veterinary Medical Association. The veterinarian’s oath. 2010. Available at: www.avma.org/about_
avma/whoweare/oath.asp (Accessed March 30, 2011).
Andrus, D.M., Prince, J.B., and Gwinner, K. 2006. Work conditions, job preparation, and placement strategies
for food-animal veterinarians. J Vet Med Educ 33: 509–516.
Brambell, F.W.R. 1965. Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under
intensive livestock husbandry systems. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Brown, J.P. and Silverman, J.D. 1999. The current and future market for veterinarians and veterinary medical
services in the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc 215: 161–183.
Chieffo, C., Kelly, A.M., and Ferguson, J. 2008. Trends in gender, employment, salary, and debt of graduates of
US veterinary medical schools and colleges. J Am Vet Med Assoc 233(6): 910–917.
Colyer, D., Kennedy, P.L., Amponsah, W.A. et al., Eds. 2001, Competition in Agriculture: The United States in
the World Market. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
de Graaf G. 2007. Veterinary students’ views on animal patients and human clients, using Q-methodology. J
Vet Med Educ 34(2): 127–138.
Economic Research Service, USDA. 1995. Understanding rural America. Agriculture Information Bulletin
No. 710, Washington, DC. Available at: www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/understd.htm (Accessed March
30, 2011).
Fraser, D., Weary, D.M., Pajor, E.A. et al. 1997. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical
concerns. Anim Wel 6: 187–205.
Gallup. 2006. The most honest and ethical professions. Poll conducted December 8–10, 2006. Available at:
www.gallup.com/poll/25888/Nurses-Top-List-Most-Honest-Ethical-Professions.aspx (Accessed March
30, 2011).
Hart, L.A. and Melese-d’Hospital, P. 1989. The gender shift in the veterinary profession and attitudes toward
animals: A survey and overview. J Vet Med Educ 16 :27–30.
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 107

Heath, T.J. and Lanyon, A. 1996. A longitudinal study of veterinary students and recent graduates. 4. Gender
issues. Aust Vet J 74: 305–308.
Hewson, C.J. 2006. Veterinarians who swear: Animal welfare and the veterinary oath. Can Vet J 47(8):
807–811.
LayWel. Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. March 28, 2006. Available at:
www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/final%20activity%20report.pdf (Accessed March 30, 2011).
Narver, H.L. 2007. Demographics, moral orientation, and veterinary shortages in food animal and laboratory
animal medicine. J Am Vet Med Assoc 230(12): 1798–1804.
Paul, E.S. and Pdberscek, A.L. 2000. Veterinary education and students’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Vet
Rec 146: 269–272.
Prince, J.B., Andrus, D.M., and Gwinner, K.P. 2006. Future demand, probable shortages, and strategies for
creating a better future in food supply veterinary medicine. J Am Vet Med Assoc 229: 57–69.
Rollin, B.E. 2006. An Introduction to Veterinary Medical Ethics: Theory and Cases, 2nd ed. Ames, IA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Russell, W.M.S., Burch, R.L., and Hume, C.W. 1992. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique.
Hertfordshire, UK: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (current edition, first published in 1959).
Serpell, J.A. 2005. Factors influencing veterinary students career choices and attitudes to animals. J Vet Med
Educ32(4): 491–496.
Sprecher, D.J. 2004. Insights into the future generation of veterinarians: Perspectives gained from the 13- and
14-year-olds who attended Michigan State University’s veterinary camp and conclusions about our obli-
gations. J Vet Med Educ 31(3): 199–202.

FIFTH VIEWPOINT: INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE ON ANIMAL WELFARE

Charles Arnot
Virtually every sector of society has undergone significant change over the past 40 years and animal
agriculture is no exception. Advancements in technology and structural changes in agriculture over
the past two generations have radically altered how food animals are raised today. These changes
have allowed Americans to enjoy a safe, nutritious, and remarkably affordable supply of meat, milk,
and eggs. They have also raised questions about animal care on today’s farms and animal agricul-
ture needs to address those questions in a transparent and forthright manner.
Brent Sandidge is a third-generation central Missouri farmer specializing in pork production.
His farm dates back to the 27 acres of land his family purchased in 1927. His father decided to get
into the pig business in the mid-1950s.
“My father probably had 20 sows when he started,” said Sandidge. “Almost everybody had some
pigs, some cows, row crops, etc. Farmers were extremely diversified back then.”
By the early 1960s, the Sandidge hog operation had grown to around 100 sows.
“That was considered big,” said Sandidge. “We were definitely known as one of the largest pork
producers in the state of Missouri.”
Because animal agriculture is a low margin business, farmers have focused on reducing costs
and increasing productivity to remain economically viable. According to USDA/AMS, from 1960
to 2005, the deflated average farm price of cattle declined by 49%, milk by 30%, hogs by 56%, eggs
by 78%, chickens by 60%, and turkeys by 73% (Plain, 2010). Because the prices paid to farmers for
these commodities did not keep up with inflation, farmers had four basic options: Increase the size
of the operation to maintain the same basic income with more animals, live on less money year after
year, find a specialty market to capture additional margin, or leave farming.
Sandidge recalls that when he returned to the farm after graduating from college in 1978, his
county’s pork producer association mailing list contained around 400 names. Today, only a handful
would be considered traditional farrow to finish hog operations.
“What happened was, people who adopted the new technology continued to grow and thrive. For
others, maybe the pig business wasn’t their first love—they probably just didn’t enjoy the pig busi-
ness so they tended to leave it. They decided to concentrate on other things—corn and soybeans,
for example.”
108 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

While many left farming, the majority of those who remain have become more specialized and
implemented technology to allow them to remain competitive. In 1950, 56% of farms had hogs,
67.8% had dairy cows, and 78.3% had chickens, according to the U.S. Census of Agriculture. By
2007, only 3.4% of farms had hogs, 3.2% had dairy cows, and 6.6% had chickens (Plain, 2010).
Specialization and adoption of technology allows larger operations to capture economies of scale
and be more productive and more efficient than smaller operations.
The Sandidges steadily expanded their operation and built barns in which to feed pigs. In the
early 1960s, they were building farrowing barns and within 10 years, the pigs were “completely off
of the dirt,” as Brent describes it, except for the gestating sows.
“We used to handle these sows in groups out on dirt. Some would get too fat—others too thin. They
would fight and establish a pecking order. We would sort them into separate groups but then those
groups would reestablish a pecking order. There would be a new group of sows that got too thin.”
Sandidge recalls that after sows gave birth, they were moved to dirt lots when the piglets were
around two weeks old.
“We fought all kinds of disease,” he said. “The sows would lie on their pigs. The weather could
be hard on them. We were doing well if we could get 50 or 60% of them to market.”
“Today, we keep them in stalls through gestation and we can better manage their health and feed
them exactly what they need for healthy growth. That has dramatically improved the health and
productivity of our herd.”
When the sows roamed freely, Sandidge recalls that a 70% piglet survivability rate was consid-
ered good. Today, 90% is not unusual.
Efficiencies and increased productivity allow U.S. consumers to enjoy more affordable meat,
milk, and eggs than consumers in other countries. From 1960 to 2009, the average deflated retail
price of beef decreased by 27%, pork by 31%, chicken by 58%, and turkey by 65% (Plain, 2010).
As a result, consumers can afford more meat and poultry. According to the Livestock Marketing
Information Center, in 1970, average Americans spent 4.2% of their income to buy 194 lb of meat
and poultry. In 2005, average Americans spent 2.1% of their income to buy 221 lb of meat and
poultry (Plain, 2010).
Many farmers have chosen contract production to minimize capital requirements and manage
the extreme volatility of commodity markets. In contract production, the contractor or integrator
owns the animals, and provides the feed, health supplies, and transportation. The grower or farmer
is paid to care for the animals and generally gets to keep the manure to use as fertilizer. Today, 46%
of U.S. hogs, 90% of chickens, and 75% of turkeys are raised on contract according to the University
of Missouri (Plain, 2010).
The overwhelming majority of men and women involved in providing meat, milk, and eggs are
committed to doing what’s right, and while the size of today’s farms and the use of technology have
changed dramatically, the integrity and commitment of those in food production has not.
While the Sandidge farm has grown from 20 sows in the mid-1950s to 3000 sows today, Brent
says he shares his father’s commitment to do the right thing.
“If you’re in the pig business, you’ve got to love pigs because it’s a lot of hard work. I love raising
pigs. I’m doing everything I can to improve their environment so they have less stress and they’re
more productive.”
Less than 1% of the U.S. population listed their occupation as farming, forestry, or fishing in the 2000
Census (BLS, 2010). The remaining 99% of Americans are generationally and geographically removed
from production agriculture. Many have a romanticized notion of what farming “should be” based on
outdated information and a lack of education about today’s production practices. While research proves
that raising animals indoors protects them from weather extremes and predators and reduces disease
(University of Missouri Extension, 2009), the integrated model of production is inconsistent with the
nostalgic image of farming held by many. In qualitative consumer research conducted on behalf of
the Center for Food Integrity, consumers indicated they have a high degree of trust and admiration for
farmers, but they are not sure today’s production methods should still be considered farming.
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 109

Consumers have a right to expect farmers, processors, restaurants, and food retailers to act
responsibly and to hold accountable those who do not.
The change in size and structure of animal agriculture, the lack of public understanding of today’s
farming practices, and cultural confusion about the role and function of animals in developed coun-
tries requires those involved in animal agriculture not only to continue to produce safe, nutritious,
and affordable meat, milk, and eggs, but also they must demonstrate their commitment to do so in
a socially responsible manner to build and maintain public trust.
Historically, agriculture was perceived to be committed to the shared values of compassion,
responsibility, respect, fairness, and truth. Farmers were granted a broad social license to operate
because it was assumed they would “do the right thing.” Today, some sectors of society are question-
ing that assumption.
Industry critics argue that today’s systems put profits above principles. That is a primary tenet of
the argument against today’s animal agriculture and it is expressed in concerns about animal care,
environmental practices, contribution to local communities, and employment practices.
When public trust is lost or violated, the social license to operate is replaced with social con-
trol in the form of legislation, regulation, market mandates, and litigation. If the public no longer
believes those in animal agriculture will “do the right thing,” they support laws and regulations
to control what happens on the farm. Animal agriculture has seen an increase in social control
related to animal care in the form of state legislation and ballot initiatives sponsored by activist
groups.
Historically, those involved in animal agriculture have relied primarily on science to defend the
increased use of technology and enhanced production systems. Research from Iowa State University
(Sapp et al., 2009) shows that effectively communicating shared values is three to five times more
important than demonstrating competency through science in building public trust, which protects
the social license to operate.
To be successful today and in the future, animal agriculture needs to demonstrate a commitment
to operating balanced systems that are ethically grounded, scientifically verified, and economically
viable (Figure 5.2).
Those who focus on ethics want food system practices that are consistent with the shared values
of compassion, responsibility, respect, fairness, and truth. They want to ensure that the increas-
ingly sophisticated and technologically advanced food system does not put profits ahead of ethical
principles and that science is not used as moral justification. When this side of the triangle is out of

Economically Viable Scientifically Verified

le

Sc
b

ROI Data Driven

Via

ien

Demand Repeatable
tifi
ly

Cost Control Measurable

l

cal
ica

Productivity Specific
om

ly

Objectivity
Ve

Efficiency
on

Sustainable
rifi

Profitability
Ec

Systems
ed

Ethically Grounded
Ethically Grounded
Compassion
Responsibility
Respect
Fairness
Truth
Value Similarity

FIGURE 5.2 Balanced systems. (From CMA Consulting LLC©.)

110 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

balance, critics claim that there is no scientific basis for the claims being made and that the ethical
demands will jeopardize the economic viability of the system.
Those with a primary interest in scientific verification are data driven. They want specific, mea-
surable, and repeatable observations to provide the basis for their objective decisions. They believe
science can provide the insight and guidance necessary to make reasonable determinations about
how food systems should be managed. When this side of the triangle is out of balance, critics claim
that the organization is relying on science while ignoring ethical considerations and that research
may be done and recommendations made without consideration of the economic impact.
Those responsible for the bottom line are focused on profitability. They work every day to respond
to demand, control costs, and increase efficiency to maximize the return on investment. They have to
manage the increasingly complex demands of competing in a global marketplace with volatile com-
modity markets and ruthless competition. When this side of the triangle is out of balance, critics claim
that profits outweigh ethical principles and that business decisions are made without the benefit of
scientific verification, placing those decisions at risk when questioned by those who value validation.
If we cannot operate a balanced system that is ethically grounded, scientifically verified, and
economically viable, it will collapse. That collapse may subject farmers, processors, restaurants,
or retailers to undue pressure that includes consumer protests or boycotts, unfavorable shareholder
resolutions, uninformed supply chain mandates, regulation, legislation, litigation, or bankruptcy.
There are some basic actions farmers and others in animal agriculture can take on the farm to
build and maintain public trust in today’s systems.

1. Do the right thing—above all else, make sure your farm meets or exceeds expectations for
animal care and environmental stewardship.
2. Set codes of conduct for animal care—if you don’t have them, establish animal care standards
and ensure the standards are reviewed regularly and are consistently enforced. Require all
workers who handle animals to sign the written code of conduct. This is important both for
animal care protocol and to verify that all employees understand their shared obligation.
3. Hire the right people and provide ongoing training and consistent supervision—do back-
ground checks, establish clear expectations for animal care, and provide ongoing training
in animal care and husbandry and consistent support and supervision.
4. Empower your workers—Let them know the critical role they play in providing animal
care and assuring your care standards are met consistently throughout the farm. Create
clear channels of communication for reporting concerns related to animal care.

Animal agriculture needs to communicate its genuine commitment to principles and shared val-
ues, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is good business. If animal agriculture
fails to maintain a social license, it will be forced to comply with a more restrictive, higher cost,
more bureaucratic system of social control.
Animal agriculture will be granted the greatest latitude in developing solutions and maintaining
social license when farmers identify those issues that may challenge public trust and confidence in
today’s farming, and propose principle-driven solutions that maintain a sustainable balance of eth-
ics, science, and profitability.

SUmmARY
Animal agriculture has changed significantly over the last 40 years, as has virtually every sector
of society. Technological advances and structural changes in agriculture have allowed Americans
to enjoy safe, nutritious, and very affordable food. Those changes have also raised questions about
animal care on today’s farms.
The economic reality is that prices paid to farmers for what they produce did not keep up with
inflation, meaning they had to choose increasing the size of their operations, living on less money
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 111

each year, finding a specialty market to capture additional margin, or leaving farming. The result
is that there are fewer but larger farms in the United States today and new technology has allowed
them to increase efficiency, productivity, and volume.
Research shows that modern production methods, such as raising animals indoors, is better for
the animals in a number of ways but they are not consistent with the nostalgic image of farm-
ing held by many. Consumers have traditionally granted farmers a broad social license to operate
because it was assumed they would “do the right thing.” Since the public has little understanding of
today’s farming practices, farmers must demonstrate their commitment to produce food in a socially
responsible manner to maintain the social license.
Historically, those involved in animal agriculture have relied on science to defend the increased
use of technology. Research shows that effectively communicating shared values is three to five
times more important than demonstrating competency through science in building public trust. To
be successful, animal agriculture must demonstrate a commitment to operating balanced systems
that are ethically grounded, scientifically verified, and economically viable. Failure to maintain this
balance could subject the food system to undue pressure that includes consumer protests or boy-
cotts, unfavorable shareholder relations, uninformed supply chain mandates, regulation, legislation,
litigation, or bankruptcy.

REFERENCEs
BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2010. Career Guide to Industries, 2010–2011 edition, Agriculture, Forestry,
and Fishing, www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs001.htm
Plain, R. 2010. Historical perspective of the integration of animal agriculture. CAST Food Animal Ag
Symposium, June 8, 2010, Washington, DC.
Sapp, S.G., Arnot, C. et.al. 2009. Consumer trust in the U.S. food system: An examination of the recreancy
theorem. Rural Sociology 74: (in press).
University of Missouri Extension. 2009. Study shows moving pigs inside has huge benefit. http://www.exten-
sion.org/pages/Study_Shows_Moving_Pigs_Inside_Has_Huge_Benefit

SIXTH VIEWPOINT: AN ACTIVIST’S PERSPECTIVE ON ANIMAL WELFARE

Paul Shapiro
America’s animal agribusiness industry is being confronted with a new reality in the twenty-first
century. For many decades, it cloaked itself in the protective mythology of Old MacDonald’s Farm
with images of contented cows and pampered pigs. However, that veneer is fading, as more and
more Americans are learning how farm animals are really raised today.
When thinking about how farm animals are raised, it can be tempting to envision those young
beef cattle we still see grazing in the countryside. The bucolic image is a powerful one, and one that
even many involved in today’s farming system seem to believe is the norm.
However, the beef industry, generally speaking, is the exception—not the norm—in animal agri-
business. Approximately 33 million beef cattle (USDA, 2010a) are slaughtered in the United States
annually. Compare that to the nine billion chickens, turkeys, and pigs we consume (USDA, 2010b)
and it becomes clear that if we are serious about discussing farm animal welfare, we need to be
serious about conditions in the poultry and pig industries. Moreover, that is where a majority of the
most pressing welfare concerns are found.
To put the disparity of scale in context, in just 36 hours the U.S. poultry industry slaughters more
animals than the U.S. beef industry slaughters in an entire year.
Despite the U.S. animal protection movement’s recent success in encouraging agribusiness to
start moving away from some of its most extreme abuses, most of the billions of animals raised and
killed each year still endure conditions that the majority of Americans would find simply appalling
were they to actually witness them.
112 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Animal science professor Peter Cheeke aptly describes this in his textbook, Contemporary Issues
in Animal Agriculture, when he writes:

One of the best things modern animal agriculture has going for it is that most people . . . haven’t a clue
how animals are raised and processed. . . . In my opinion, if most urban meat eaters were to visit an indus-
trial broiler house, to see how the birds are raised, and could see the birds being “harvested” and then
being “processed” in a poultry processing plant, they would not be impressed and some, perhaps many of
them, would swear off eating chicken and perhaps all meat. For modern animal agriculture, the less the
consumer knows about what’s happening before the meat hits the plate, the better. (Cheeke, 1999)

Events in recent years give the impression that we are reaching a societal tipping point when it
comes to establishing a better, more humane relationship with other animals. However, we need to
balance that well-founded optimism with reality: In many ways, the treatment of the astronomical
numbers of animals we raise and kill for food has grown steadily harsher in recent decades.
I don’t anticipate that we’ll soon reach societal agreement regarding the ethical permissibility (or
lack thereof) of exploiting these animals. As interesting and worthwhile as that debate may be, it is a
separate issue. We don’t need to wait for such a broad discussion to conclude (or even to begin) before
we can start making important animal welfare improvements that society already agrees on and that
science and economics demonstrate are feasible. In short, it is incumbent upon us all to move forward
on phasing out some standard practices that most of us already agree are simply unacceptable.
That is to say that there really is no excuse for failing to enact policies prohibiting many of the
more egregious abuses animals face, and there are certainly plenty to go around. Such an effort
would both reduce an enormous amount of unnecessary animal suffering and demonstrate that we
are indeed capable of restraining ourselves when it comes to the virtually unlimited power we hold
over farm animals.
Such progress is not intended to end the discussion about broader ethical questions, nor is its
purpose to end all animal cruelty. The intent, simply put, is to allow our society to move in a positive
direction by closing the gap between what Americans want for farm animals and what agribusiness
is giving them.

WHERE DOEs THE AmERiCAN PUbliC STAND?

The polling and the statewide votes regarding farm animal welfare are all fairly consistent.
A 2008 Gallup poll found that 64% percent of Americans support “passing strict laws concern-
ing the treatment of farm animals” (Gallop, 2008). As well, a 2003 Zogby poll found that while
a majority of Americans identify themselves as concerned about “the treatment of farm animals
raised for food consumption,” 82% agree that “there should be effective laws that protect farm ani-
mals against cruelty and abuse.” The same poll found that 72% percent of Americans believe that
“farms should be inspected by government inspectors to ensure that laws to protect animals from
cruelty are being followed” (Zogby, 2003).
Even industry-funded polls show virtually identical results.
In 2007, the American Farm Bureau Federation paid Oklahoma State University to conduct a
nationwide survey (Lusk, Norwood, and Prickett, 2007) on American attitudes toward farm animal
protection. The results were revealing:

• 81% agree: Farm animals have roughly the same ability to feel pain and discomfort as
humans.
• 75% agree: Would vote for a law in their state that would require farmers to treat their
animals more humanely.
• 95% agree: It is important to me that animals on farms are well cared for.
• 68% agree: The government should take an active role in promoting farm animal welfare.
• 18% agree: Housing pregnant sows in crates is humane.
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 113

It could not be clearer: Americans believe farm animals have interests that matter (for example,
not being confined in a virtually immobile state for months on end), and they believe those interests
ought to be legally protected.

HOw MUCH LEGAl PROTECTiON DO FARm ANimAls HAVE NOw?

If you spend any amount of time in agricultural circles, you would be hard-pressed to go for long
without hearing complaints about a sea of regulation producers must endure. In reality, when it
comes to how animals are actually treated, almost anything goes. It may be reassuring to pretend
that animals on farms have significant legal protection from abuse, but that simply is untrue in most
cases.
Animals used for food production have no federal legal protection whatsoever while they are
on the farm. The federal Animal Welfare Act completely exempts animals used for food, and the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) only sets standards for the animals’ final minutes—
while they are at slaughter. Even worse, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) interprets the
HMSA to exempt nearly all slaughtered animals (chickens, turkeys, rabbits, and several other species,
which represent approximately 95% of the land animals who go through slaughter plants). Moreover,
no person or company has ever been prosecuted under the HMSA for humane handling violations
because USDA has no authority to do so; even in cases where the USDA has found repeated, blatant
violations of the Act—such as an Iowa kosher cattle slaughterhouse that was documented repeatedly
ripping the tracheas out of cows’ throats while the animals were fully conscious (Eby, 2004)—vio-
lations go unprosecuted. Lastly, there is the federal 28-Hour Law, which regulates the transport of
some farm animals, but which the USDA does not interpret to cover birds and is irrelevant as far as
on-farm treatment is concerned (which is where the vast majority of farm animals’ lives are spent).
At the state level, all 50 states have criminal anti-cruelty statutes, but most of them broadly
exempt standard agricultural practices (which are often vaguely defined), essentially allowing any
practice the industry chooses to widely utilize. Not surprisingly, a 2003 Zogby poll found that 66%
percent of Americans find it “unacceptable” to exempt common agricultural practices from state
cruelty laws (Zogby, 2003). However, even in states that do not exempt standard practices from their
cruelty codes, animal abuse prosecutions against agribusiness operations are extremely rare.
The result of such regulatory laissez faire is that animals are left with very little protection,
legally speaking, especially while they are on farms.
As American attitudes toward farm animals have grown increasingly sympathetic over the past
few decades, some standard industry practices have gone in the opposite direction, especially in the
poultry and pig industries. Poor farm animal welfare is not just a matter of a “few rotten eggs,” but
rather it is a case of some standard industry practices that most Americans find simply rotten.
This widening chasm between what Americans want for farm animals and what farm animals actu-
ally get is one of the most indefensible realities of our current animal agribusiness system. What many
animal advocates are now proposing is simply that we narrow this gap by translating existing public
support for animal welfare improvements into new policies that offer some semblance of protection to
these animals. The following sections offer a few very brief concrete suggestions for such policies.

CAGE CONFiNEmENT OF LAYiNG HENs

More than 250 million U.S. egg-laying hens live in barren wire cages so restrictive that the animals
can barely move for more than a year before they are slaughtered. With no opportunity to engage in
many natural behaviors, including nesting, dust bathing, perching, and walking, these birds endure
severe, chronic frustration. This near-immobilization takes a substantial toll on the animal’s physi-
cal health. Deprived of exercise, the birds suffer from a weak skeletal system (Shipov et al., 2010),
and combined with the commonly fed high-energy diet, they can suffer from “fatty liver hemor-
rhagic syndrome,” a major cause of mortality in commercial flocks (Leeson, 2007).
114 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

If any system is emblematic of where the industry has gone far beyond what most Americans find
acceptable, it is the cage confinement of laying hens. Even some in the meat industry seem uncom-
fortable with what happens in the egg industry. For example, consider what industry journalist and
executive director of the Meat Industry Hall of Fame, Dan Murphy, has to say on the topic:

Now, I don’t know how many meat industry executives have spent any amount of time inside an egg
production facility, but it’s not a pleasant experience. In fact, I would argue that the egg industry is
probably the sole exception to my conviction that producers and processors generally treat their live-
stock with care, if only to protect their investment. Egg producers operate from the principle of planned
obsolescence. Since the hens are expendable, the goal is maximum production in the short time they are
confined to their “living quarters”—if you can call the battery cage set-up anything that euphemistic.
(Murphy, 2000)

Today’s battery cage proponents frequently assert that the cages were invented for the welfare of
the bird, an argument unsupported by much evidence. In fact, in 1971—long before animal welfare
was a major topic in the industry—one poultry industry representative admitted:

They can tell you all kinds of reasons why cages are good, but what they really did was to organize the
hens in a production line where you can use more machinery, cut way down on labor, and allow just a
few people to take care of a tremendous number of birds. (Sawyer, 1971, p. 216)

In other words, battery cages became popular because they made producing eggs cheaper, not
because they were better for the birds.
Dr. Bernard Rollin of the Department of Animal Science at Colorado State University states
that

[v]irtually all aspects of hen behavior are thwarted by battery cages….The most obvious problem is
lack of exercise and natural movement....Research has confirmed what common sense already knew—
animals built to move must move. (Rollin, 1995, p. 120)

However, common sense does not always prevail, and basic movement is not an option for these
animals.
When dealing with single facilities that confine hundreds of thousands—millions in many
­cases—of birds, individual inspection and veterinary care for each bird is impossible. The most that
workers typically do for the birds is walk the aisles to remove the hundreds of newly-dead birds they
find in cages each day (often, as numerous exposés have documented, the staff miss dead birds so
frequently that carcasses become mummified in the cages).
The United Egg Producers (UEP) recommends that in a cage with multiple chickens, each laying
hen get only 67 in.2 of cage space (UEP, 2010). To put this in perspective, think about a letter-sized
(8.5 × 11 in.) sheet of paper. That sheet of paper takes up 93.5 in.2 of space. Now imagine folding the
paper so that you hide almost a third of it, and then picture confining a 4-lb animal in that space for
months on end. That is the plight of the modern egg-laying hen.
The extraordinarily restrictive amount of space is not the only major welfare assault for caged
laying hens. Konrad Lorenz, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern ethology, wrote that

the worst torture to which a battery hen is exposed is the inability to retire somewhere for the laying act.
For the person who knows something about animals it is truly heart-rending to watch how a chicken
tries again and again to crawl beneath her fellow cagemates to search there in vain for cover. (Lorenz,
1980)

In fact, research has shown that laying hens will work as hard to gain access to an enclosed nest-
ing area as they will to gain access to food after they have been starved for 27 hours (Follensbee,
1992). Such evidence makes it clear just how strongly these birds are motivated to nest.
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 115

The good news is that there is growing public opposition to the confinement of hens in cages,
as evidenced by a flood of legislation, media attention, and corporate policies favoring cage-free
production in recent years. For example:

• Several countries, such as Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, have already legislated
against cages for laying hens and are presently phasing them out. Indeed, the entire
European Union is phasing out barren battery cages (the kind that are standard in the
United States) by 2012.
• California and Michigan—two large egg-producing states—have passed de facto bans
(with phase-out periods) on cage confinement of hens.
• At the start of 2005, no major restaurant chains used any cage-free eggs; now, most do.

There is no question about the intersection of values that is driving change for laying hens. In
the above-referenced American Farm Bureau poll, a majority of Americans thinks caging hens is
inhumane, and a UEP-funded poll found that a plurality of Americans believe that caging hens
is “not healthier nor safer.”1
Animal scientist Dr. Michael Appleby sums it up well:

Battery cages present inherent animal welfare problems, most notably by their small size and barren
conditions. Hens are unable to engage in many of their natural behaviors and endure high levels of stress
and frustration. Cage-free egg production, while not perfect, does not entail such inherent animal wel-
fare disadvantages and is a very good step in the right direction for the egg industry. (Appleby, 2006)

Commercial U.S. cage-free operations—which allow hens to walk, spread their wings, nest,
perch, and more—are already raising millions of laying hens, and this number will likely increase
as concerns about farm animal welfare grow stronger. The industry has a chance to embrace cage-
free systems that better-accommodate both animal welfare and consumer desires.

GEsTATiON CRATE CONFiNEmENT OF BREEDiNG PiGs

In 1968, after witnessing the economic results already achieved by the egg industry through confin-
ing increasing numbers of animals in small spaces, one pork industry analyst asked, “Why cannot
greater efforts be made to introduce some of the economies of scale to hog production that have
made the battery raising of chickens so efficient?” (Twedt, 1968).
So it began. There was indeed little to stop the pork industry from going in the same direc-
tion as the egg producers. This is especially so in the case of the female pigs who are used for
breeding.
While most pigs used for pork production may have bleak lives living on concrete slatted floors
with no bedding and little environmental enrichment, breeding sows are abused in ways so terrible,
few people would support such treatment were they to see it firsthand.
Gestation crates are 2-ft-wide barren metal cages that confine impregnated pigs for months on
end. They are unable even to turn around. Pigs confined in gestation crates suffer immensely, unable
to exercise or engage in nearly any of their natural behaviors. The forced immobilization takes a
serious physical and psychological toll, leading to both leg and joint problems along with psychosis
resulting from extreme boredom and frustration.
Numerous animal scientists oppose these cruel crates. Colorado State University animal scientist
Dr. Temple Grandin asserts, “Gestation crates for pigs are a real problem...Basically, you’re asking a
sow to live in an airline seat...I think it’s something that needs to be phased out.”2
Some in the pork industry still defend the use of gestation crates on the grounds that not only is it
cheaper to pack pigs into the smallest spaces possible, but crating allegedly helps reduce sow aggres-
sion. Animal scientist and farm animal expert Dr. John Webster asserts that this defense “rests on
the premise that it is acceptable to prevent an undesirable pattern of behaviour by restricting all
116 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

forms of behaviour.” Webster goes on to explain, “It would be as valid to claim that prisons would be
much more manageable if all the inmates were kept permanently in solitary confinement” (Webster,
2005).
As well, the economic argument in favor of gestation crates isn’t exactly strong. One need not
look further than Iowa State University, where a 2-1/2-year-long study concluded that raising sows
in groups in hoop housing rather than individual crates could cut the cost of production by 11%
percent per weaned pig (Iowa State University, 2007).
As is the case with battery cages, the science seems to comport with the public’s gut reaction
against such extreme confinement. After the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European
Commission concluded, “Since overall welfare appears to be better when sows are not confined
throughout gestation, sows should preferably be kept in groups” (Scientific Veterinary Committee,
1997), the entire European Union passed legislation phasing out gestation crates.
Seven U.S. states have passed legislation banning gestation crates. Even some parts of the indus-
try, after years of defending such confinement, are beginning to see the light with major pork pro-
ducers starting to move in the right direction.
In fact, a 2004 National Hog Farmer magazine article profiled Goldsboro Hog Farms, a major
U.S. pork producer that has not used gestation crates for years (Miller, 2004). Cargill, a major
pork producer, issued a press release in 2009 declaring that 50% of its sows are no longer in gesta-
tion crates (Cargill, 2009), and in 2010 the company’s director of communications asserted that
“Our plan is to ultimately move further away from gestation crates” (Forster, 2010). Smithfield
Foods—the world’s largest pork producer—has stated that its goal is to become gestation crate-free,
although at present it doesn’t have a timeline for achieving that aim.
The fact that many farms are using alternative systems is living proof of the unnecessary nature
of gestation crates.

FORCED RAPiD GROwTH OF BiRDs RAisED FOR MEAT

The 9 billion chickens and turkeys slaughtered in the United States each year are far removed
in appearance from the wild animals that we originally domesticated. Unlike their fleet-footed
ancestors, these animals are the products of intensive genetic selection for maximal weight gain
with minimal feed consumption—as though animals could be transformed into meat-producing
machines with enough human manipulation. Administration of growth-promoting antibiotics and
other additives often help along the way, as do near-permanent lighting schedules that cause the
birds to eat more than they would if they had a longer nighttime period of darkness.
In the 1950s, it took 84 days to raise a 5-lb chicken. Today, it takes an average of only 45 days, often
even less (Havenstein, Ferket, and Qureshi, 2003). In 1947, just before this forced rapid growth of
birds took off, the Saturday Evening Post described what the chicken industry was planning to do:

No politician ever promised more than our poultrymen are now about to deliver. They expect to squelch
that dream of two chickens in every pot by providing one bird chunky enough for the whole family—a
chicken with breast meat so thick you can carve it into steaks, with drumsticks that contain a minimum
of bone buried in layers of juicy dark meat, all costing less instead of more.3

They weren’t really that far off.

Moreover, just as being morbidly overweight carries numerous health problems for humans, this
forced rapid growth takes an enormous toll on the welfare of the birds. Poultry welfare expert Dr.
Ian Duncan writes, “Without doubt, the biggest welfare problems for meat birds are those associ-
ated with fast growth” (Duncan, 2004).
Dr. Temple Grandin puts it more bluntly: “Today’s poultry chicken has been bred to grow so
rapidly that its legs can collapse under the weight of its ballooning body. It’s awful” (Grandin and
Johnson, 2005). Consequently, huge numbers of chickens raised for meat suffer from leg deformities
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 117

and lameness. Studies consistently show that approximately 26 to 30% of broiler chickens suffer
from gait defects severe enough to impair their walking ability (Knowles et al., 2008), and additional
research strongly suggests that birds at this level of lameness are in pain (Danbury et al., 2000).
Additionally, rapid growth can lead to circulatory and pulmonary problems. “Sudden death syn-
drome” (SDS) is caused by acute heart failure and is common in broiler chickens (Riddell and
Springer, 1985). Young birds die from SDS after sudden convulsions and wing-beating (Julian,
2004). Ascites is a condition in which rapidly growing broiler chickens do not have the heart and
lung capacity needed to distribute oxygen throughout the body (Duncan, 2001) and is a leading
cause of on-farm mortality as the birds reach market weight (Boersma, 2001).
Even though rapid growth increases mortality rates, it is not necessarily in producers’ economic
interests to improve the situation. Two University of Arkansas poultry industry researchers were
straightforward in their assessment when they asked:

Is it more profitable to grow the biggest bird possible and have increased mortality due to heart attacks,
ascites and leg problems or should birds be grown slower so that birds are smaller, but have fewer heart,
lung and skeletal problems?...A large portion of growers’ pay is based on the pound of saleable meat
produced, so simple calculations suggest that it is better to get the weight and ignore the mortality.
(Tabler and Mendenhall, 2003, pp. 8–10)

But better for whom?

On the growth rate issue for meat-producing birds, animal scientist Dr. John Webster observes,

On the balance of the evidence, we must conclude that approximately one quarter of the heavy strains
of broiler chickens and turkeys are in chronic pain for approximately one third of their lives….This
must constitute, in both magnitude and severity, the single most severe, systematic example of man’s
inhumanity to another sentient animal. (Webster, 1995, p. 156)

While slower-growing strains of birds do exist, they comprise an infinitesimal portion of the U.S.
poultry market and are therefore not as easy for consumers to find. The companies that control nearly
all poultry production have created the problem through intensive genetic selection for specific traits
(mainly rapid growth and higher rates of feed conversion), and those same companies can instead
select birds for health and welfare. In fact, nearly one-third of chickens raised for food in France are
actually slow-growing, free-ranging birds, marketed as “Label Rouge” (Fanatico and Born, 2002).
Despite the enormity of the suffering forced rapid growth causes these animals, the costs asso-
ciated with slowing these birds’ growth rates are not as high as are those associated with some
other important farm animal welfare improvements. The European Union’s Scientific Committee
on Animal Health and Animal Welfare found that slower growth would increase running costs
principally by delaying the slaughter age, but that delaying slaughter age by only 10 days, while
having a significant impact on welfare, would only cause approximately 5% higher costs than those
of conventional breeds.4
Slowing today’s astronomical growth rates would of course not address every form of suffering
we inflict on the billions of birds we raise for food, but it would help improve their welfare in a
meaningful way.

MOViNG FORwARD TO A BETTER FUTURE FOR FARm ANimAls

Concern about animal cruelty is far from the only consideration vying for the American public’s
attention, but the evidence is clear that our society considers it an important matter that warrants
our serious attention. Farm animals are completely at our mercy, yet the abuses we force on them—
including, but far from limited to, the three examples given in this chapter—are simply beyond the
bounds of what our society considers ethically appropriate.
118 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Some in the industry are consequently moving toward better systems and more realistic hus-
bandry. Unfortunately, some trade groups that represent animal agribusinesses choose not to lead,
but to fight the kinds of reforms outlined in this chapter, no matter how popular they may be with
the American public.
As Nebraska cattle rancher Kevin Fulton writes,

A lot of farmers I know don’t support battery cages and gestation crates, but they fear being ostracized
by the Farm Bureau and other trade groups if they speak out. I can’t imagine anyone being proud to
have to keep their animals locked up in tiny cages for their whole lives. Most farmers would rather use
some husbandry than have to rely on such shortcuts, but they don’t see a way out. If we had better lead-
ership in our industries though, we could move in the right direction rather than being—correctly—
perceived as hostile to any substantial animal welfare changes.5

The animal agribusiness industry has a chance to stop defending practices many Americans find
indefensible and instead move toward systems that will better accommodate both animal welfare
and consumer desires. Rather than trying to prevent change, these groups can and are beginning to
seek incentives for producers to convert to higher welfare production methods.

REFERENCEs
Appleby, M. 2006. “Clarification,” letter to the editor published in Minnesota Daily, February 7, 2006.
Boersma, S. 2001. Managing rapid growth rate in broilers. World Poultry 17(8): 20–21.
Cargill. 2009. Cargill achieves eight critical animal welfare assurance goals, Cargill press release, April 15,
2009. Available at www.cargill.com/news-center/news-releases/2009/NA3011043.jsp
Cheeke, P. 1999. Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture, 2nd ed. Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers, p.
248.
Danbury, T.C., Weeks, C.A., Chambers, J.P., Waterman-Pearson, A.R., and Kestin, S.C. 2000. Self selection of
the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. The Veterinary Record 146: 307–311.
Duncan, I.J.H. 2001. Animal welfare issues in the poultry industry: Is there a lesson to be learned? Journal of
Applied Animal Welfare Science 4(3): 207–221.
Duncan, I.J.H. 2004. Welfare problems of poultry. In: The Well-Being of Farm Animals. Benson, J.B. and
Rollin, B.E. Eds. Ames, IA: Blackwell, p. 310.
Eby, C. 2004. Ag Secretary Judge: Postville slaughter video is ‘disturbing’, December 7.www.globegazette.
com/news/state-and-regional/article_3e20ddbd-ef9a-50cd-9202-daf25e5699aa.html
Fanatico, A. and Born, H. 2002. Label rouge: Pasture-based poultry production in France. National Sustainable
Agriculture Information Service. www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/labelrouge.html
Follensbee, M. 1992. Quantifying the nesting motivation of domestic hens. Master’s Thesis, University of
Guelph, Ontario.
Forster, J. 2010. Humane Society buys ownership stake in Hormel. St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 13, 2010.
Available at www.twincities.com/business/ci_16067517
Gallup. 2008. Post-Derby tragedy, 38% support banning animal racing. Gallup poll conducted May 8–11, 2008.
Available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/107293/PostDerby-Tragedy-38-Support-Banning-Animal-
Racing.aspx
Grandin, T. and Johnson, C. 2005. Animals in Translation. Harcourt Books, pp. 270–271.
Havenstein, G.B., Ferket, P.R., and Qureshi, M.A.. 2003. Growth, livability, and feed conversion of 1957 versus
2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poultry Science 82: 1500–1508.
Iowa State University. 2007. Alternatives to Sow Gestation Stalls Researched at Iowa State. April 19, 2007.
www.ag.iastate.edu/news/releases/319/
Julian, R.J. 2004. Evaluating the impact of metabolic disorders on the welfare of broilers. In: Measuring and
Auditing Broiler Welfare. Weeks, C. and Butterworth, A., Eds. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Knowles, T.G., Kestin, S.C., Haslam, S.M. et al. 2008. Leg disorders in broiler chickens: Prevalence, risk fac-
tors and prevention. PLoS ONE 3(2): e1545. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001545.
Leeson, S. 2007. Metabolic challenges: Past, present, and future. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 16:
121–125.
Lorenz, K. 1980. Animals are sentient beings: Konrad Lorenz on instinct and modern factory farming. Der
Spiegel. 34(47): 264.
Defining Agricultural Animal Welfare 119

Lusk, J.L., Norwood, F.B., and Prickett, R.W. 2007. Consumer Preferences for Farm Animal Welfare:
Results of a Nationwide Telephone Survey. Available at http://asp.okstate.edu/baileynorwood/AW2/
InitialReporttoAFB.pdf
Miller, D. 2004. Sows flourish in gestation pens. National Hog Farmer, May 15, 2004. Also available at http://
nationalhogfarmer.com/mag/farming_sows_flourish_pen/index.html
Murphy, D. 2000. Commentary: Fast-food chain proves service not limited to customers. The Meatingplace,
August 25, 2000.
Riddell, C. and Springer, R. 1985. An epizootiological study of acute death syndrome and leg weakness in
broiler chickens in Western Canada. Avian Diseases 29: 90–102.
Rollin, B.E. 1995. Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical, and Research Issues. Ames, IA: Iowa State Press,
p. 120.
Sawyer, G. 1971. The Agribusiness Poultry Industry: A History of Its Development. Hicksville, NY: Exposition
Press, p. 216.
Scientific Veterinary Committee, European Commission. 1997. The welfare of intensively kept pigs. Adopted
September 30, 1997. http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.pdf (Accessed September 27,
2010).
Shipov, A., Sharir, A., Zelzer, E., Milgram, J., Monsonego-Ornan, E., and Shaher, R. 2010. The influence of
severe prolonged exercise restriction on the mechanical and structural properties of bone in an avian
model. The Veterinary Journal 183: 153–160.
Tabler, G.T. and Mendenhall, A.M. 2003. Broiler nutrition, feed intake and grower economics. Avian Advice
5(4): 8–10.
Twedt, D. 1968. General acceptance of pork. In: The Pork Industry: Problems and Progress, Topel, D.G., Ed.
Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, p. 7.
UEP (United Egg Producers). 2010. Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks. 2010 edition.
Available at www.uepcertified.com/media/pdf/UEP-Animal-Welfare-Guidelines.pdf
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2010a. Livestock Slaughter
2009 Summary, p 3. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/LiveSlauSu/LiveSlauSu-04-29-2010.pdf
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2010b. Poultry Slaughter 2009
Summary, p 2. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/PoulSlauSu/PoulSlauSu-02-25-2010.pdf
Webster, A.J.F. 1995. Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, p. 156.
Webster, J. 2005. Animal Welfare: Limping Towards Eden. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, p. 112.
Zogby, J. 2003. Nationwide Views on the Treatment of Farm Animals. Zogby poll released on October 22,
2003. Available at www.civileats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/AWT-final-poll-report-10-22.pdf

ENDNOTES
1. “Laying Out the Facts.” Presentation by United Egg Producers spokesman Mitch Head, delivered to the
American Meat Institute’s “Animal Care and Handling Conference,” Kansas City, MO, February 18,
2004.
2. Comments Temple Grandin made during a Q&A session on January 9, 2006 at Manhattan Columbus
Circle, New York. They can be heard at: http://nycanimalrights.com/Temple%20Grandin%20Animals%20
in%20Translation.htm
3. Saturday Evening Post, August 9, 1947. As cited in Sawyer, Gordon. 1971. The Agribusiness Poultry
Industry: A History of Its Development. Hicksville, NY: Exposition Press, p. 116.
4. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. 2000. The welfare of chickens kept for
meat production (broilers). For the European Commission; Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-
General, March 21, 2000.
5. Personal email communication between Kevin Fulton and the author on September 29, 2010. Used with
permission.
 6 Contemporary
Agriculture
Animal

Rural Community Concerns

in the United States
David Andrews

CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 121
Historical Considerations of Industrial Production......................................................................... 122
Trends in Industrial Agriculture Driven by CAFOs........................................................................ 123
Quality of Life............................................................................................................................ 123
Social Disruption........................................................................................................................ 125
CAFOs and Poverty................................................................................................................... 125
Lower Real Estate Values........................................................................................................... 126
Economic Vitality Declines........................................................................................................ 126
Civic Participation and Political Vitality Suffers....................................................................... 126
Public Health Concerns Grow.................................................................................................... 126
Economic Health........................................................................................................................ 128
Mental Health............................................................................................................................. 128
Social Health.............................................................................................................................. 128
Environmental Injustice............................................................................................................. 129
Failure of the Political Process................................................................................................... 129
Property Value Decrease............................................................................................................ 129
Summary......................................................................................................................................... 130
References....................................................................................................................................... 130

INTRODUCTION
Industrialized agriculture can be defined as applying the values of simplification, specialization, and
concentration to a manufacturing operation, including food production and farm animal production
(Taylor, 1911; see also Kanagil, 1997). The methods of automobile production and food processing
have been applied to livestock production beginning with poultry and moving to pigs, cattle, and
dairy cows (Heinrichs and Welsh, 2003). These industrial farm animal production methods have
had significant impacts on rural communities. The history of such impacts has been reviewed in
much of academic literature in the fields of sociology, economics, and public health.
This chapter considers the community and social impacts of concentrated animal feeding opera-
tions (CAFOs). It will consider the impacts on the day-to-day lives of individuals, families, and
communities. It will also provide as relevant global and structural considerations related to CAFO
systems. Industrial production is of relatively recent vintage and a contemporary movement to

121
122 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

c­ onsider issues of sustainability leads one to question the longevity of the industrial model for
­animal agriculture and CAFOs in particular.

HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION

Researchers have examined many aspects of industrialized animal production in rural communities
and social groups. Linda Labao and Curtis Stofferahn, for example, are two established sociologists
who have reviewed academic and public concern relative to the national food system, in topic areas
such as agribusiness concentration, consumer health, food safety, and sustainability of the national
eco-system. However, their chief concern has been to review the immediate effects of industrialized
farming on the day-to-day lives of citizens residing in the places where CAFOs are located: rural
communities. There is a long history of public, government, and academic concerns with the conse-
quences of industrialized farming. CAFOs have significantly harmed rural communities by making
enjoyable living conditions impossible to enjoy. The quality of life has suffered immensely and the
concentration of many animals in one area has led to significant detrimental effects being reported,
including the loss of quality of life, fresh clean air, and comfortable enjoyment of the outdoors, as
well as significant health impacts.
Since the 1930s, government and academic researchers have investigated the extent to which
large-scale, industrialized farms have adversely affected the communities in which they are located.
One of the first studies was conducted by a sociologist, E.D. Tetreau (1938, 1940), who found that
large-scale, hired labor-dependent farms were associated with poor social and economic well-being
in rural Arizona communities.
In the early 1940s, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) sponsored a research
project to assess the effects of industrialized farming using a matching-pair design of two California
communities: Arvin, where large, absentee-owned, non-family farms were more numerous, and
Dinuba, where locally owned, family-operated systems were more numerous. Walter Goldschmidt,
a USDA anthropologist, prepared the report on this project. The purpose of the study was to assess
the consequences of a California law with a provision placing acreage limitations on large farms
located in California’s Central Valley, to support family-sized farms in the region. Goldschmidt
reported that the study “was designed to determine the social consequences that might be antici-
pated for rural communities if the established law was applied or rescinded” (Goldschmidt, 1978a,
p. 458).
In his report, Goldschmidt (1978a) systematically documented the relationship between large-
scale farming and its adverse consequences for a variety of community quality of life indicators.
He found that, relative to the family farming community, Arvin’s population had a small middle
class and a high proportion of hired workers. Family incomes were lower and poverty was higher.
Their schools were of poorer quality as were public services. There were also fewer churches, civic
organizations, and retail establishments. Arvin’s residents also had less local control over public
decisions, or “lack of democratic decision-making,” as local government was prone to be influenced
by outside agribusiness interests. By contrast, the family farming city of Dinuba had a larger middle
class, better socioeconomic conditions, higher community stability, and better civic participation.
Goldschmidt’s report was eventually published as Congressional testimony (Goldschmidt, 1968)
and as a book (Goldschmidt, 1978a). His conclusion that large-scale industrialized farms create a
variety of social problems for communities has been confirmed by many other studies.
California, in its Small Farm Viability Project (1977, pp. 229–230) affirmed Goldschmidt’s find-
ings by revisiting Arvin and Dinuba. They concluded:

The disparity in local economic activity, civic participation, and quality of life between Arvin and
Dinuba…remains today. In fact, the disparity is greater. The economic and social gaps have widened.
There can be little doubt about the relative effects of farm size and farm ownership on the communities
of Arvin and Dinuba.
Contemporary Animal Agriculture 123

Quality of life issues related to the structure and scale of agriculture have been examined since
the early 1940s. MacCannell (1988) conducted a macro study that included family-farm and indus-
trial agricultural communities in 98 industrial-farm counties in California, Arizona, Texas, and
Florida. He found that farm size (in acres), gross farm sales, as well as high levels of mechaniza-
tion “significantly predict declining community conditions not merely at the local agricultural
community level, but in the entire county” (1988, p. 63). These studies of industrialized agricul-
tural production are direct precedents for later studies of CAFOs, which engage in the specializa-
tion, concentration, and simplification of agricultural production systems, which are the hallmarks
of industrialization.
Recent studies reveal tendencies of economic decline in communities with greater concentration
of CAFOs, similar to Goldschmidt’s thesis of greater rural community decline with greater indus-
trialization of agriculture. The econometric analysis conducted by Gomez and Zhang (2000) over
a decade revealed the negative impact of swine CAFOs on economic growth in rural Illinois coun-
ties, as indicated by sales receipts. They found that purchases from small businesses declined as
concentrations of CAFOs intensified. In a Michigan study, Abeles-Allison and Connor (1990) found
that local purchases of supplies for swine production decrease as CAFO concentrations increase.
Local expenditures per hog were calculated at $67 for the small farms and $46 for the large farms.
(Of interest here is the fact that one goal of CAFO is to reduce unit cost. Many more hogs would be
sold and much more feed would be purchased in large swine CAFO.) The difference is largely due
to bulk feed purchases from outside the community by the larger farms, but also is related to some-
what greater total expenditures per hog on the smaller farms. A significant conclusion is that rural
community economic decline is related to vertical integration. Fewer inputs are purchased locally
and businesses on Main Street tend to dry up as large-scale CAFOs purchase their services from a
single related supplier outside the community where the CAFO is located.

TRENDS IN INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE DRIVEN BY CAFOs

There are significant negative consequences to rural communities due to the proliferation of CAFOs
around the United States. Among these are a deterioration in the quality of life, an increase in
income inequality, social disruption, the decline of community services and property values, public
health, environmental racism (which recognizes differential impacts on minorities in environmental
behaviors), negative attitudes toward living conditions, and decreased political vitality.

QUAliTY OF LiFE
The social fabric of communities undergoes significant change as the industrialization of agri-
culture takes place and the many related undesirable effects occur. It has been shown recurrently
through the research that there is a decline in local population size when family farms are replaced
by industrialized farms; a smaller population is sustained by industrialized farms relative to family
farms. Again, where capital-intensive agriculture relies more on technology than on labor in the
efforts to simplify, standardize, and centralize operations, a distinct result is a decline in the social
fabric of the community (Goldschmidt, 1978a; Heady and Sonka, 1974; Rodefeld, 1974; Wheelock,
1979).
An important aspect of the quality of life in a community is social capital, which includes
mutual trust, reciprocity, and shared norms and identity. In general, communities with greater
social capital provide greater quality of life (Flora and Flora, 1998). In addition, social capital
emerges as an internal resource in instances of controversies. That is, where there is social conflict,
there is a greater possibility of the division being enhanced by the grouping of activists on differ-
ing sides.
Wing and Wolf’s (2000) study of 50 to 55 individuals from each of three North Carolina rural
communities showed that quality of life was greatly diminished among residents near a 6000-head
124 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

swine confinement operation, compared to residents near two intensive cattle operations or near an
agricultural area without livestock operations that required liquid waste management. Quality of
life was indicated by the number of times that neighbors could not open their windows or go outside
due to odors from CAFOs. Of the respondents from around the hog CAFO, 30% (as compared to
a maximum of 3% from the other two communities) indicated that these problems had occurred
12 or more times during the past six months prior to the survey. Many rural residents commented
that it was difficult to plan social activities in their homes because of the uncertainty of whether the
air would be tolerable for guests (see Wright et al., 2001, pp. 28–30, for similar health and social
responses near Minnesota CAFOs). Such limitations on social relations with one’s neighbors indi-
cate a decline in community social capital.
Quality of life issues that related to agricultural structures are evident in eastern North Carolina.
This region experienced a tremendous growth in the hog industry beginning in the 1980s that
included both contract and corporate production facilities and meat packing plants. Many citizens
there perceive that this has left them with a power structure in which the interests of large pork
producers dominated those of local residents at all levels of government (McMillan and Schulman,
2003; Thu and Durrenberger, 1998).
The process of industrialization leads to the reduced enjoyment of property and deterioration in
the landscape, especially when there is a recurrent odor problem in communities with hog CAFOs
(Schiffman, Slattery-Miller, Suggs, and Graham, 1998; Wing and Wolf, 1999, 2000; Constance &
Tuinstra, 2005; Kleiner, 2003; McMillan and Schulman, 2003).
Research reflects that various parts of the country have experienced a decline in quality of life
and social capital related to CAFOs. Quality of life concerns incentivized citizen action such as
the documented actions of anti-CAFO groups in the Texas panhandle. They focused on episodes
of resistance carried out by local residents and environmental groups who were motivated mainly
by human health and property value concerns. Corporate responses to community resistance pri-
marily involved reconstruction of their corporate image as environmentally friendly. A decline
in social capital is associated with swine CAFOs, according to rural residents of Iowa, North
Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, and Missouri who describe violations of core rural values of hon-
esty, respect, and reciprocity, as reported in an interdisciplinary workshop held in Iowa on swine
CAFOs. For example, CAFO neighbors often consider it a violation of respect when their concerns
are labeled as emotional, perceptual, and subjective or are dismissed as invalid or unscientific.
Findings that are more recent as presented by Kleiner, Rikoon, and Seipel (2000) indicate that in
two northern Missouri counties where large-scale, corporately owned swine CAFOs are dominant,
citizens expressed more negative attitudes regarding trust, neighborliness, community division,
networks of acquaintanceship, democratic values, and community involvement. The county that
was dominated by independently owned swine operations had the most positive attitudes regarding
trust, neighborliness, community division, and networks of acquaintanceship. Quality of life issues
reflecting the growth or decline of social capital are clearly reflected in these differing regions of
the United States. Quality of life factors are emphasized in recent literature addressing the commu-
nity impacts of CAFOs. In 2001, the state of Minnesota brought together the scientific and public
policy communities to advise state government on how to address several CAFO issues, resulting
in a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for animal agriculture. It suggests, “quality
of life is related to perceptions of: (1) having alternatives in what one does on a daily or life cycle
basis, and (2) being respected by family and communities of interest and place” (Flora et al., 1999,
p. A24).
Wright et al. (2001) reported results from a six-county study in southern Minnesota regard-
ing changes in animal agriculture. Over 100 producers, community leaders, and others were
interviewed, either in roundtable discussions or individually. Three patterns reflect the decline
of social capital that resulted from the siting of CAFOs in all six rural communities: (l) wid-
ening gaps between the farmers who produce livestock within CAFOs and their neighbors,
including non-CAFO livestock producers; (2) harassment of vocal opponents of CAFOs; and
Contemporary Animal Agriculture 125

(3) perceptions by both CAFO supporters and opponents of hostility, neglect, or inattention by
public institutions that resulted in perpetuation of an adversarial and inequitable community
climate.

SOCiAl DisRUPTiON
Social disruption is another category of negative impact of CAFOs on communities. These social
disruptions are reflected in increases in crimes, lawsuits, police activity, stress, and social prob-
lems, which had not been experienced in the community prior to the arrival of CAFOs (North
Central Regional Center for Rural Development, 1999). Research showed that the increase in
local police activity was associated with CAFO laborers, especially when the operations relied
upon large numbers of single men for their labor with relatively little social life integrated within
the local community. A general increase in social conflict was evident from this in the research
(Seipel, Hamed, Rikoon, and Kleiner, 1999) and included increased stress, social and psychologi-
cal problems (Martinson, Wilkening, and Rodefeld, 1976; Schiffman et al., 1998), and teenage
pregnancies (Labao, 1990). Research shows a deterioration of relationships among hog farmers
and neighbors (Jackson-Smith and Gillespie, 2005; McMillan and Schulman, 2003) and more
stressful, less neighborly relations (Constance and Tuinstra, 2005; Smithers, Johnson, and Joseph,
2004). The North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (1999) examined the dramatic
increases in corporate hog production and meatpacking in a rural Oklahoma county. Social capital
indicators measured mutual trust, reciprocity, and shared norms and identity. Individual secu-
rity was measured in terms of crime, and community conflict was measured in terms of civil
court cases. The overall crime rate increased dramatically between 1990 and 1997. Violent crimes
increased 378% compared to an average 29% percent decrease in violent crimes over the same
period in comparison farming-dependent counties with no dramatic changes in animal agricul-
ture. Theft-related crimes also increased in the case county by 64% compared to a decrease of
11% in comparison counties. Civil court cases, indicating community conflict, increased in the
case county by 7%, but decreased 11% in the comparison counties. This study reveals the dra-
matic costs of social disruption in counties experiencing rapid change due to the introduction of
CAFOs.

CAFOs AND POVERTY

CAFOs seem to be located in communities’ census blocks with high poverty and minority popu-
lations (Wilson, Howell, Wing, and Sobsey, 2002). There are lower incomes for certain seg-
ments of the community with a greater income inequality and poverty. There is evidence from
research that shows communities differ depending upon the integration of a food production
system within the local community and its economic life or if its operation is distinct, sepa-
rated, and vertically integrated so that few of its inputs or activities are integrated fully with the
local economic community. In industrialized agriculture, the “main street” is less active and the
multiplier effect of interdependent economic activity is lost. This leads to a situation of greater
income inequality and poverty in the area. The very recent research in the 1990s and later in
2000 and further on, as indicated in the following citations, reflect analysis that demonstrates
that poverty and inequality are significant factors in CAFO areas (Tetreau, 1940; Goldschmidt,
1978a; Heady and Sonka, 1974; Rodefield, 1974; Flora, Brown, and Conby, 1977; Wheelock,
1979; Labao, 1990; Crowley, 1999; Deller, 2003; Crowley and Roscigno, 2004; Peters, 2002;
Welsh and Lyson, 2001). There are higher unemployment rates in those CAFO communities
where the industrialized system becomes more “efficient” through increased use of rendering
technology rather than an increase in utilization of farm labor as the means to achieving suc-
cessful economic operations (Skees and Swanson, 1988; Welsh and Lyson, 2001). Where indus-
trialized agriculture comes to prevail, the social class structure becomes less desirable and
126 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

poorer along with the increases in hired labor. In some areas, well-paid union labor gives way to
migrant laborers who are willing to work for less and to rent apartments for a number of single
males to occupy (Gilles and Dalecki, 1988; Goldschmidt, 1978a; Harris and Gilbert, 1982).
Increased food stamp utilization is associated with industrialized hog production in Iowa, sug-
gesting that industrial agriculture generates inequalities or that industrial agriculture thrives in
counties with greater inequalities.

LOwER REAl EsTATE VAlUEs

Real estate values decline in residences closest to CAFOs. These homes experience declining values
relative to those more distant from CAFOs (North Central Regional Center for Rural Development,
1999, p. 46; Seipel, Hamed, Rikoon, and Kleiner, 1998; Constance and Tuinstra, 2005; Wright et al.,
2001). The decline in the values of homes has occurred in diverse parts of the country. The value of
a house declines when a CAFO comes to the neighborhood.

ECONOmiC ViTAliTY DECliNEs

When CAFOs arrive in an area, the local economy suffers. The retail trade is decreased and the
community has fewer stores and a less diverse economic landscape (Goldschmidt, 1978a; Heady and
Sonka, 1974; Rodefeld, 1974; Fujimoto, 1977; Marousek, 1979; Skees and Swanson, 1998; Gomez
and Zhang, 2000). This has been documented throughout decades of research on industrialized
livestock production including more recent studies of CAFOs.

CiViC PARTiCiPATiON AND POliTiCAl ViTAliTY SUFFERs

A reduction in civic participation leads to a deterioration in community organizations and less
involvement in social life. This is a recurring factor in the literature about communities with CAFOs
(Goldschmidt, 1978a; Heffernan and Lasley, 1978; Poole, 1981; Rodefeld, 1974; Smithers et al.,
2004). People begin to withdraw and lose their impact on social interactions including the decline in
the quality of local governance and less democratic political decision-making. The public becomes
less involved as outside agribusiness interests increase their influence or control over local decision-
making. This loss of democratic vitality has been discovered in industrial agriculture and in com-
munities having CAFOs over the past several decades of reporting (Tetreau, 1940; Rodefeld, 1974;
Goldschmidt, 1978a; McMillan and Schulman, 2003).
Community services decline with the industrialization of livestock production, leaving an area
with fewer or poorer quality public services and fewer churches (Teatreau, 1940; Fujimoto, 1977;
Goldschmidt, 1978a). This has been seen in many different places and times.

PUbliC HEAlTH CONCERNs GROw

There have been studies of neighbors of hog CAFOs that have developed health problems that
include upper respiratory issues, digestive tract disorders, and vision and eye problems (Wing
and Wolf, 1999; Constance and Tuinsra, 2005; Wing and Wolf, 2000; Kleiner, 2003). There have
been more than 70 papers published on the adverse health effects of the CAFO confinement
environment by authors in the United States, Canada, most European countries, and Australia.
It is clear that at least 25% of confinement workers suffer from respiratory diseases including
bronchitis, mucous membrane irritation, asthma-like problems, and acute respiratory distress
syndrome. Recent findings substantiate anecdotal observations that a small proportion of work-
ers experience acute respiratory symptoms early in their work history that may be sufficiently
severe to cause their immediate withdrawal from the workplace (Dosmann et al., 2004). An addi-
tional acute respiratory condition, organic dust toxic syndrome, related to high concentrations
Contemporary Animal Agriculture 127

of bio-aerosols in livestock buildings occurs episodically in more than 30% of workers in swine
CAFOs.
The body of literature on adverse effects among residents living near swine operations has been
increasing. Excessive respiratory symptoms in neighbors of large-scale CAFOs relative to compari-
son populations in low-density livestock-producing areas were documented. The pattern of devel-
opment of these symptoms was similar among workers in Iowa, North Carolina, and Nebraska.
Neighbors of confinement facilities reportedly experienced increased levels of mood disorders
including anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances attributable to malodorous compounds.
Wheezing among schoolchildren has been identified as well as an increasing incidence of asthma
among children living on these farms. Children’s health has also been recognized as at risk from
the effects of CAFOs (Thu and Durrenberger, 1998). Donham (2000) describes possible nontoxic
mechanisms for CAFO odors to generate physical symptoms through complex interactions between
nerves of the brain and somatic systems of the body. Shusterman (1992) describes some of these
mechanisms in his review of the health effects of environmental odor and pollution on human
health. There are well-researched linkages of physical symptoms to the uncontrolled variability of
stressors, including environmental stressors, that may be applicable to CAFO odors. In addition, the
variety of family, neighborhood, and community stressors sometimes associated with CAFOs may
also generate stress-induced symptoms and illness.
The site of a swine confinement facility in Parma, Michigan, in the mid-1980s generated conflict
when the firm established a five-unit CAFO with manure lagoons. Neighbors believed the three
open-air 42-million-gallon lagoons compromised their health and quality of life. Local resistance
culminated in the emergence of two grassroots organizations and a four-year litigation process.
Consequences of this conflict were anger on the part of residents who believed that their environ-
ment and their integrity had been violated. This led to resentment toward public officials, polar-
ization within the community, vandalism, alienation, and verbal threats and physical aggression
by both sides. Although the opponents of the CAFO won the battle on the local level (the CAFO
went bankrupt), when they were interviewed a few years later, the CAFO operator felt that the per-
sonal acrimony and divisions in the community resulting from the conflict over the smell from the
lagoons was too high a price to pay.
Characteristics of the nearest CAFO and of the affected neighbor influence the latter’s level of
annoyance with CAFOs. In a study conducted in the early 1980s in British Columbia, Van Kleek
and Bulley (1985) chose 14 swine farms, 14 beef farms, 11 laying hen farms, and 10 broiler farms
located at least 800 m (somewhat less than a half mile) from any other livestock farm. At least 12
residents (non-producers of livestock) were within 800 m of each livestock farm. Those residents
rated their perception of the livestock farm “as it relates to your living here” on a five-point scale
with “no nuisance/very compatible” to “severe nuisance/incompatible.”
The authors found that nuisance potential decreased with distance, but it decreased the least
for hog farms. Larger farms were a greater nuisance than smaller ones, but the difference dis-
appeared for residences that were at very close ranges to the livestock farms. Hog farms were
considered the greatest nuisance, followed by cattle feedlots, and then poultry CAFOs. Odor rep-
resented 75% of the total nuisance, but the proportion differed according to the type of farm; for
hog farms, 95% of the nuisance responses related to odor; for broilers, 75%; for layers, approxi-
mately 66%; and for feedlots, approximately 50%. People with rural backgrounds were less tol-
erant of livestock farms than were people who came from urban areas, while opinions of those
with farm backgrounds did not differ from those without farm backgrounds. Lohr (1996) found
that among neighbors of a swine farm, tenure of residence, previous contact with the farmer, and
economic dependence on farming all correlated negatively with their perceived degree of odor
annoyance.
All sides of controversies involving CAFOs tend to frame their issues and identities in terms
of rights and entitlements, as described in McMillan and Schulman’s (2003) research on the hog
industry in North Carolina. For example, producers defend their property rights and right to earn
128 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

a living from their land, while neighbors defend their right to enjoy their own property. DeLind
(1995) documents that in response to local opposition to corporate CAFO or “hog hotels” in Parma,
Michigan, the Farm Bureau, the Pork Producers Council, and other agricultural interest groups
defended the right of “hog hotels” to exist without regulation by appealing to the right to farm.
An examination of local purchasing patterns of large and small dairy farms in Wisconsin found
that the percentage of dairy feed purchased locally declined as herd size increased. Stronger indica-
tors of local feed purchasing were the physical nearness and social attachment to the community.
In Minnesota, Chism and Levins (1994) found that local spending was not related to gross sales
volume on crop farms. However, local farm-related expenditures fell sharply when the scale of
livestock operations increased.

ECONOmiC HEAlTH
Economic concentration of agricultural operations tends to remove a higher percentage of money
from rural communities than when the industry is dominated by smaller farm operations, which
tend to circulate money within the community. A study by MacCannell (1988) of comparable types
of communities researched in Goldschmidt’s work found that the concentration and industrial-
ization of agriculture were associated with economic and community decline locally and region-
ally. Results of studies in Illinois (Gomez and Zhang, 2000), Iowa (Durrenberger and Thu, 1996),
Michigan (Abeles-Allison and Connor, 1990), and Wisconsin demonstrated decreases in tax receipts
and declining local purchases with larger operations. A Minnesota study (Chism and Levins, 1994)
found that the decline in local spending was related to enlargement in the scale of individual live-
stock operations rather than crop production. These findings consistently show that the social and
economic well being of local rural communities benefits from increasing the number of farmers, not
simply from increasing the volume of commodity produced (Osterberg and Wallinga, 2004).

MENTAl HEAlTH
Living in proximity to large-scale CAFOs has been linked to symptoms of impaired mental health, as
assessed by epidemiological measures. Greater self-reported depression and anxiety were reported
among North Carolina residents living near CAFOs (Bullers, 2005; Schiffman et al., 1995).
Another example of mental health effects of CAFOs is that greater reporting of post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) cognitions have been reported among Iowans living in areas with a high
concentration of CAFOs compared with Iowans living in areas of low concentrations of livestock
production (Hodne, unpublished). The PTSD cognitions were consistent with multiple concerns of
those persons interviewed about the decline in the quality of life and socioeconomic vitality caused
by CAFOs in areas where increases in CAFOs resulted in concentration with declining family farm
production.

SOCiAl HEAlTH
One of the most significant social impacts of CAFOs is the disruption of the quality of life for
neighboring residents. More than an unpleasant odor, the smell can have dramatic consequences
for rural communities where lives are rooted in enjoying the outdoors. The encroachment of large-
scale livestock facilities near homes is significantly disruptive to rural living. The highly cherished
values of freedom and independence associated with life oriented toward the outdoors gives way to
feelings of violation and infringement. Social gatherings where family and friends come together—
backyard barbecues and visits by friends and family—are affected in practice or through disruption
of routines that normally provide a sense of belonging and identity. Homes are no longer an exten-
sion of or a means for enjoying the outdoors. Rather, homes become a refuge to escape from the
outdoors.
Contemporary Animal Agriculture 129

Studies evaluating the impacts of CAFOs on communities suggest that CAFOs generally attract
controversy and often threaten community social capital (Kleiner et al., 2000). The rifts that develop
among community members can be deep and long-standing (DeLind, 1998). Wright et al. (2001)
conducted in an in-depth study of six counties in southern Minnesota and identified three patterns
that reflect the decline of social capital that resulted from CAFOs. In all six rural communities,
they studied: (1) widening gaps between CAFO and non-CAFO producers; (2) harassment of vocal
opponents of CAFOs; and (3) perceptions by public institutions that resulted in perpetuation of
an adversarial and inequitable community climate. Threats to CAFO neighbors have also been
reported in North Carolina (Wing, 2002). Clearly, the community conflict often follows the siting
or presence of a CAFO in a community.

ENViRONmENTAl INJUsTiCE
Disproportionate location of CAFOs in areas populated by people of color or people with low
incomes is a form of environmental injustice that can have negative impacts on community health.
In North Carolina, Wing, Cole, and Grant (2000) have found patterns of disproportionate siting of
corporate CAFOs in rural, lower-income, and African-American communities. This places resi-
dents of those communities at disproportionate risk for health and socioeconomic problems. Results
of several studies have shown that a disproportionate number of swine CAFOs are located in low-
income and non-white areas (Ladd and Edward, 2002) and near predominantly low-income and
non-white schools (Mirabelli, Wing, Marshall, and Wilcosky, 2006a, 2006b). These facilities and
the hazardous agents and common problems associated with them are generally unwanted in local
communities and are often thrust upon those sectors with the lowest levels of political influence.
Low-income communities and populations that experience institutional discrimination based on
race have higher susceptibilities to CAFO impacts due to poor health status and lack of access to
medical care.

FAilURE OF THE POliTiCAl PROCEss

In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the effective-
ness of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in meeting its obligations to regulate
CAFOs (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005). The report identified two major flaws:
(1) allowing an estimated 60% of CAFOs in the United States to go unregulated; and (2) a lack
of federal oversight of state governments to ensure that the CAFOs they are regulating are ade-
quately implementing required federal regulations for CAFOs. Additionally, many states have
not taken a proactive stance to comply with U.S. EPA regulations. Therefore, the concentration
of livestock production, most noted by CAFO style production, has continued to expand in most
states. This has resulted in many rural communities and individuals taking action on their own,
through local ordinances or litigation, as they have not been able to find access through usual
government channels.

PROPERTY VAlUE DECREAsE

Several studies have found that property values decrease when CAFOs move into a community.
Neighbors of CAFOs are interested in preventing loss of property value, loss of their homes and
land, forced changes in their lifestyle, adverse changes in their communities, and threats to their
health. However, the legislative process in many states has often been unresponsive to citizens’ con-
cerns regarding CAFOs. For example, 13 states have enacted laws that inhibit citizens from speak-
ing freely about agriculture if remarks are deemed disparaging. All 50 states have some form of
right-to-farm legislation. Nuisance suits have been the recourse of some residents. Most states have
some form of environmental laws protecting the environment and require certain sizes of operations
130 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

to apply for permits; however, there is little enforcement of these laws due to few provisions and
little staff to provide such enforcement.
The following is derived from the part of the Farm Foundation study entitled: “Community and
Labor” from the report “The Future of Animal Agriculture in North America, Farm Foundation”
issued in 2004. The study links processing, slaughtering, and production, and includes the linkages.
Results of research identified in this report document the significance of immigration to meat pro-
duction most closely in all of the studies.

One significant outcome in the changing dimensions of animal agriculture is a change in the relationship
between farms and rural communities. Production units have become larger and more technologically
advanced, using supply chains and marketing channels to link to the economy at large. Much produc-
tion has shifted from independent operators to vertically coordinated ­operations that largely bypass
community linkages. New operations may bring new resources, opportunities, and economic growth
to local economies. Large production systems, such as CAFOs, are linked to nearby processing plants
that require a concentration of workers who may not be highly paid and who may have to be recruited
from other locales. Such systems challenge the socioeconomic milieu of communities where those
enterprises are located. New economic opportunities may affect the community’s autonomy, norms,
traditions, pace, culture, and control.

SUMMARY
This chapter reviews the documentation of and studies on the negative consequences of CAFOs
in rural America. There is significant evidence of ongoing and cumulative negative effects.
Unfortunately, there has been little political will to address these problems.

REFERENCES
Abeles-Allison, M. and Connor, L. 1990. An analysis of local benefits and costs of Michigan hog operations
experiencing environmental conflicts. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University,
East Lansing.
Banker, D.E. and MacDonald, J.M. 2005. Structural and financial characteristics of U.S. farms: 2004 family
farm report. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. AIB979.
Bullers, S. 2005. Environmental stressors, perceived control and health: The case of residents near large scale
hog farms in eastern North Carolina. Human Ecology 33: 1–16.
Chism, J.W. and Levins, R.A. 1994. Farm spending and local selling: How do they match up? Minnesota
Agricultural Economist 676: 1–4.
Constance, D. and Tuinstra, R. 2005. Corporate chickens and community conflict in East Texas: Growers and
neighbors’ views on the impacts of industrial broiler production. Culture and Agriculture 27: 45–60.
Cox, J. 2007. Industrial Animal Agriculture: Part of the Poverty Problem. London: World Society for the
Protection of Animals.
Craypo, C. 1994. Meatpacking: Industry restructuring and union decline. In: Contemporary Collective Bargaining
in the Private Sector, Voos, P., Ed. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association, pp. 63–96.
Crowley, M.L. 1999. The impact of farm sector concentration on poverty and inequality: An analysis of north cen-
tral U.S. counties. Master’s Thesis, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Crowley, M.L. and Roscigno, V.J. 2004. Farm concentration, political economic process and stratification: The
case of the North Central U.S. Journal of Political and Military Sociology 31: 133–155. Farming in Iowa:
The applicability of Goldschmidt’s findings fifty years later. Human Organization 55: 409–415.
DeLind, L.B. 1995. The state, hog hotels, and “the right to farm”: A curious relationship. Agriculture and
Human Values 12: 34–44.
DeLind, L.B. 1998. Parma, a story of hogs, hotels and local resistance. In: Pigs, Profits, and Rural Communities,
Thu, K. and Durrenberger, E.P., Eds. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 23–38.
Deller, S.C. 2003. Agriculture and rural economic growth. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 35:
517–527.
Donham, K.J. 2000. The concentration of swine production: Effects on swine health, productivity, human
health, and the environment. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 16:
559–597.
Contemporary Animal Agriculture 131

Donham, K.J., Wing, S., Osterberg, D., Flora, J.L., Hodne, C., Thu, K.M., and Thorne, P.S. 2007. Community
health and socioeconomic issues surrounding concentrated animal feeding operations. Environmental
Health Perspectives 115(2).
Dosman, J.A., Lawson, J.A., Kirychuck, S.P., Cormier, Y., Biem, J., and Koehcke, N. 2004. Occupational
asthma in newly employed workers in intensive swine confinement facilities. European Respiratory
Journal 24(4): 698–702.
Drabenstott, M. and Smith, T.R. 1996. The changing economy of the rural heartland. In: Economic Forces
Shaping the Rural Heartland. Kansas City, KS: Federal Reserve Bank, pp. 1–11.
Flora, C.B. and Flora, J.L. 1988. Public policy, farm size and community well-being in farming dependent
counties of the plains. In: Agriculture and Community Change in the U.S.: The Congressional Research
Reports, Swanson, L.E., Ed. Boulder CO: Westview Press, pp. 76–129.
Flora, C.B., Carpenter, S., Hinrichs, C., Kroma, M., Lawrence, M., Pigg, K., Durgan, B., and Draeger, K. 1999.
A summary of the literature related to social/community. Prepared for the Minnesota Environmental
Quality Board by the University of Minnesota. A1–A68.
Flora, J.L., Brown, I., and Conby, J.L. 1977. Impact of type of agriculture on class structure, social well-being,
and inequalities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Burlington,
VT, August.
Flora, J.L. and Flora, C.B. 1986. Emerging agricultural technologies, farm size, public policy, and rural com-
munities: The Great Plains and the West. In: Technology, Public Policy and the Changing Structure of
American Agriculture. Vol. 2, Background Papers, Part D: Rural Communities. Washington, D.C.: Office
of Technology Assessment, pp. 168–212.
Foltz, J.D., Jackson-Smith, D., and Chen, L. 2000. Do purchasing patterns differ between large and small
dairy farms? Econometric evidence from three Wisconsin communities. Submitted to Agriculture and
Resource Economics Review.
Fujimoto, I. 1977. The communities of the San Joaquin Valley: The relation between scale of farming, water
use, and quality of life. In: U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Obstacles to Strengthening the
Family Farm System. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Family Farms, Rural Development, and
Special Studies of the Committee on Agriculture, 95th Congress, first session. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, pp. 480–500.
Gilles, J.L. and Dalecki, M. 1988. Rural well-being and agricultural change in two farming regions. Rural
Sociology 53: 40–55.
Goldschmidt, W. 1968. Small business and the community: A study in the central valley of California
on effects of scale of farm operations. In: U.S. Congress, Senate, Corporation Farming, Hearings
Before the Subcommittee on Monopoly of the Select Committee on Small Business, U.S. Senate,
90th Congress, second session, May and July. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
pp. 303–433.
Goldschmidt, W. 1978a. As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness. Montclair, NJ:
Allanheld, Osmun and Company.
Goldschmidt, W. 1978b. Large-scale farming and the rural social structure. Rural Sociology 43: 362–366.
Gomez, M.I. and Zhang, L. 2000. Impacts of concentration in hog production on economic growth in rural
Illinois: An econometric analysis. American Agricultural Association Annual Meeting, Tampa, FL.
Green, G.P. 1985. Large-scale farming and the quality of life in rural communities: Further specification of the
Goldschmidt hypothesis. Rural Sociology 50: 262–273.
Harris, C. and Gilbert, J. 1982 Large-scale farming, rural income and Goldschmidt’s agrarian thesis. Rural
Sociology 47: 449–458.
Heady, E.O. and Sonka, S.T. 1974. Farm size, rural community income, and consumer welfare. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 56: 534–542.
Heffernan, W.D. 1972. Sociological dimensions of agricultural structures in the United States. Sociologia
Ruralis 12: 481–499.
Heffernan, W.D. 1974. Social consequences of vertical integration: A case study. Proceedings of Southern
Agricultural Scientists.
Heffernan, W.D. and Lasley, P. 1978. Agricultural structure and interaction in the local community: A case
study. Rural Sociology 43: 348–-336.
Heffernan, W.D. and Hendrickson, M. 2007. University of Missouri at Columbia, MO. Update of Concentration
Studies, Commissioned by the National Farmers Union, Denver, Colorado.
Heinrichs, C. and Welsch, R. 2003. The effects of the industrialization of U.S. livestock agriculture on promot-
ing sustainable production practices. Agriculture and Human Values 20: 125–141.
Hodne, C. Unpublished research. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
132 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Humann, M.J., Donham, K.J., Jones, M.L., Achutan, C., and Smith, B.J. 2005. Occupational noise exposure
assessment in intensive swine farrowing systems: Dosimetry, octave band, and specific task analysis.
Journal of Agromedicine 10(1): 23–37.
Jackson-Smith, D. and Gillespie, Jr., G.W. 2005. Impact of farm structural change on farmers’ social ties.
Society and Natural Resources 18: 215–240.
Kanagil, R. 1997. The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency. New York:
Penguin Books.
Kenney, M., Lobao, L.M., Curry, J., and Goe, W.R. 1989. Midwestern agriculture in U.S. fordism: From the
new deal to economic restructuring. Sociologia Ruralis 29(2): 130–148.
Keystone Center. 2001. Keystone national policy dialogue on trends in agriculture. Keystone Center, Keystone,
CO, March.
Kleiner, A.M., Rikoon, J.S., and Seipel, M. 2000. Pigs, participation, and the democratic process: The
impacts of proximity to large-scale swine operations on elements of social capital in northern
Missouri communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society,
Washington, DC.
Kleiner, A.M. 2003. Goldschmidt revisited: An extension of Lobao’s work on units of analysis and quality of life.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, July.
Ladd A.E. and Edward, B. 2002. Corporate swine and capitalist pigs: A decade of environmental injustice and
protest in North Carolina. Social Justice 29: 26–46.
Lobao, L. 1987. Farm Structure, Industry Structure and Socioeconomic Condition. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Lobao, L. 1993. Forward. In: Contemporary Sociology, Barkley, D., Ed. 22(5): vii–ix.
Lobao, L.M. 1990. Locality and Inequality: Farm and Industry, Structure and Socioeconomic Condition.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Lobao, L.M. 2000. Industrialized farming and its relationship to community well-being: Report prepared for
the State of South Dakota. Pierre, SD: Office of the Attorney General.
Lohr, L., 1996. Perceptions of rural air quality: What will the neighbors think? Journal of Agribusiness 14.
Lyson, T.A., Torres, R.J., and Welsh, R. 2001. Scale of agricultural production, civic engagement, and com-
munity welfare. Social Forces 80: 311–327.
MacCannell, D. 1988. Industrial agriculture and rural community degradation. In: Agriculture and Community
Change in the U.S.: The Congressional Research Reports, Swanson, L.E., Ed. Boulder CO: Westview
Press, pp. 15–75.
MacCannell, D. and Dolber-Smith, E. 1986. Report on the structure of agriculture and impacts of new technol-
ogies on rural communities in Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas. In: Technology, Public Policy and
the Changing Structure of American Agriculture, Vol. 2, Background Paper, Part D: Rural. pp. 19–167.
Marousek, G. 1979. Farm size and rural communities: Some economic relationships. Southern Journal of
Agricultural Economics 11: 57–61.
Martinson, O.B., Wilkening, E.A., and Rodefeld, R.D. 1976. Feelings of powerlessness and social isolation
among “large-scale” farm personnel. Rural Sociology 41: 452–472.
McCurdy, S.A. and Carroll, D.J. 2000. Agricultural injury. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 38(4):
463–480.
McMillan, M. and Schulman, M.D. 2003. Hogs and citizens: A report from the North Carolina front. In:
Communities of Work: Rural Restructuring in Local and Global Contexts, Falk, W.W., Schulman, M.D.,
and Tickmayer, A.R., Eds. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, pp. 219–239.
Minnesota Planning Agency. 2002. Environmental Quality Board, Final Animal Agriculture Generic
Environmental Quality Impact Statement (GEIS), September 14.
Mirabelli, M.C., Wing, S., Marshall, S., and Wilcosky, T. 2006a Asthma symptoms among adolescents
who attend public schools that are located near confined swine feeding operations. Pediatrics 118(1):
e66–e75.
Mirabelli, M.C., Wing, S., Marshall, S., and Wilcosky, T. 2006b. Race, poverty, and potential exposure of
middle school students to air emissions from confined swine feeding operations. Environmental Health
Perspectives 114: 591–596.
North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (NCRCRD). 1999. The impact of recruiting vertically
integrated hog production in agriculturally based counties of Oklahoma. Report to the Kerr Center for
Sustainable Agriculture. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Osterberg, D. and Wallinga, D. 2004. Addressing externalities from swine production to reduce public health
and environmental impacts. American Journal of Public Health 94(10): 1703–1708.
Contemporary Animal Agriculture 133

Pereira, F. and Goldsmith, P.D. 2005. From negative externalities to industrial illegitimacy, an empirical analysis
of the Illinois livestock industry. Presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management
Association, Springfield, MA.
Peters, D.J. 2002. Revisiting the Goldschmidt hypothesis: The effect of economic structure on socioeco-
nomic conditions in the rural Midwest. Technical Paper P-0702-1, Missouri Department of Economic
Development, Missouri Economic Research and Information Center, Jefferson City, MO.
President’s Council on Sustainable Development. 1996. Sustainable America: A New Consensus for the
Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the Future. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Poole, D.L. 1981. Farm scale, family life, and community participation. Rural Sociology 46: 112–127.
Rautiainen, R.H. and Reynolds, S.J. 2002. Agricultural Safety and Health Conference: Using Past and Present
to Map Future Actions.
Rodefeld, R.D. 1974. The changing organization and occupational structure of farming and the implications for farm
work force individuals, families and communities. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Schiffman, S., Miller, E.A., Suggs, M.S., and Graham, B.G. 1995. The effect of environmental odors emanat-
ing from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents. Brain Research Bulletin 37:
369–375.
Schiffman, S., Slattery-Miller, E.A., Suggs, M.S., and Graham, B.G. 1998. Mood changes experienced by per-
sons living near commercial swine operations. In: Pigs, Profits, and Rural Communities, Thu, K.M. and
Durrenberger, E.P., Eds. Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press, pp. 84–102.
Seipel, M., Hamed, M., Rikoon, J.S., and Kleiner, A.M. 1998. The impact of large-scale hog confinement facil-
ity sitings on rural property values. Conference Proceedings: Agricultural Systems and the Environment,
pp. 415–418.
Seipel, M., Hamed, M., Rikoon, J.S., and Kleiner, A.M. 1999. Rural residents’ attitudes toward increased regu-
lation of large-scale swine production. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Rural Sociological
Society, August.
Shusterman, D. 1992. Critical review: The health significance of environmental odor pollution. Archives of
Environmental Health 47: 76–87.
Skees, J.R. and Swanson, L.E. 1988. Farm structure and rural well-being in the south. In: Agriculture and
Community Change in the U.S.: The Congressional Research Reports, Swanson, L.E., Ed. Boulder CO:
Westview Press, pp. 238–321.
Skees, J.R. and Swanson, L.E. 1998. Agriculture in the South and the interaction between farm structure
and well-being in rural areas. In: Technology, Public Policy and the Changing Structure of American
Agriculture. Vol. 2, Background Papers, Part D: Rural Communities. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Technology Assessment, pp. 373–495.
Small Farm Viability Project. 1977. The Family Farm in California: Report of the Small Farm Viability
Project. Sacramento, CA: Employment Development, the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research, the Department of Food and Agriculture in the Department of Housing and Community
Development.
Smithers, J., Pal Johnson, P., and Joseph, A. 2004. The dynamics of family farming in North Huron County,
Ontario. Part II: Farm-community interactions. The Canadian Geographer 48: 209–224.
Starmer, E., 2006. Feeding the Factory Farm: Implicit Subsidies to the Broiler Chicken Industry. Medford, MA:
Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., and de Haan, C. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Stofferahn, C. 2006. Industrialized Farming and Its Relationship to Community Well-Being: An Update of a
2000 Report by Linda Lobao. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota.
Stull, D., Broadway, M.J., and Griffith, D. 1995. Any Way You Cut It: Meat Processing and Small-Town America.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of America.
Taylor, F.W. 1911. Principles of Scientific Management. New York.
Tetreau, E.D. 1938. The people of Arizona’s irrigated areas. Rural Sociology 3: 177–187.
Tetreau, E.D. 1940. Social organization in Arizona’s irrigated areas. Rural Sociology 5: 192–205.
Thompson, N. and Haskins, L. 1998. Searching for Sound Science: A Critique of Three University Studies on
the Economic Impacts of Large-Scale Hog Operations. Walthill, NE: Center for Rural Affairs (article
cited in the University of Minnesota Report).
Thu, K. and Durrenberger, P. Eds. 1998. Pigs, Profits, and Rural Communities. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
134 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Livestock market reporting: USDA has taken some steps to
ensure quality, but additional efforts are needed. GAO-06-202, December 9, 2005. Available: http://www.
gao.gov/new.items/d06202.pdf (accessed June 15, 2006).
Van Kleek, R.J. and Bulley, N.R. 1985. An assessment of separation distance as a tool for reducing farmer/
neighbor conflict. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Agricultural Wastes. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Von Essen, S.G. and McCurdy, S.A. 1998. Health and safety risks in production agriculture. Western Journal
Medicine 169(4): 214–220.
Welsh, R. and Lyson, T.A. 2001. Anti-corporate farming laws, the “Goldschmidt hypothesis” and rural commu-
nity welfare. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Albuquerque, NM.
Wheelock, G.C. 1979. Farm size, community structure and growth: Specification of a structural equation model.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Burlington, Vermont, August.
Wilson, S.M., Howell, F., Wing, S., and Sobsey, M. 2002. Environmental injustice and the Mississippi hog
industry. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(2): 195–201.
Wing, S. 2002. Social responsibility and research ethics in community driven studies of industrialized hog
production. Environmental Health Perspectives 108: 225–231.
Wing, S., Cole, D., and Grant, G. 2000. Environmental injustice in North Carolina’s hog industry. Environmental
Health Perspectives 108: 225–231.
Wing, S. and Wolf, S. 1999. Intensive livestock operations, health and quality of life among Eastern North
Carolina residents. Report to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Chapel Hill,
NC: Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina.
Wing, S. and Wolf, S. 2000. Intensive livestock operations, health and quality of life among Eastern North
Carolina residents. Environmental Health Perspectives 108(3): 233–238
Wise, T.A. and Starmer, E. 2007. Industrial livestock companies’ gain from low feed prices, 1997–2005, Global
Development and Environmental Institute, Tufts University, February.
Wright, W., Flora, C., Kremer, K., Goudy, W., Hinrichs, C., Lasley, P., Maney, A., Kronma, M., Brown, H.,
Pigg, K., Duncan, B., Coleman, J., and Morse, D. 2001. Technical work paper on social and commu-
nity impacts. Prepared for the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture and the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.
 7 Implementing Effective
Practices and Programs to
Assess Animal Welfare
John J. McGlone and Temple Grandin

CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 135
Qualities of Oversight Programs..................................................................................................... 136
Individual Animal Industry Oversight Programs............................................................................ 137
Swine Program........................................................................................................................... 137
Dairy and Beef Cattle Programs................................................................................................ 138
Laying Hen Program.................................................................................................................. 138
Meat Bird Programs (Chickens and Turkeys)............................................................................ 138
Niche Market Programs............................................................................................................. 138
Outcome vs. Input Standards.......................................................................................................... 139
Meat Processing Program............................................................................................................... 139
Simple Improvements..................................................................................................................... 140
Basic Outcome Measures for All Mammals and Birds on Farms................................................... 141
Directly Observable Measures........................................................................................................ 142
Three Types or Levels of Animal Welfare Audits........................................................................... 142
Comments Must Be Clear............................................................................................................... 143
Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................................. 143
References....................................................................................................................................... 143

INTRODUCTION
Farm animal welfare is important to livestock and poultry producers, governments, consumers,
and retailers who sell animal products. In the United States, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
regulates the humane slaughter of food animals and a 137-year-old law requires that pigs, cattle,
and sheep not be transported more than 28 hours without feed and water, but the United States does
not use government oversight to manage on-farm animal care. In contrast, the European Union
has passed extensive laws and regulations that increase welfare standards for farm animals. There
are no such national laws regulating humane treatment of animals on farms in the United States.
Animal welfare concerns that may arise on farms range from the prevention of obvious abuse to
ethical issues where scientific research alone cannot provide all the answers.
In the United States, the oversight of farm animal care falls to food retailers including gro-
cery stores, restaurants, and intermediate suppliers. McDonald’s, for instance, has taken the lead in
auditing farm animal slaughter plants and some animal production facilities. Although McDonald’s
is recognized as an early adopter of humane oversight, virtually all of the major retailers have since
developed some kind of animal welfare standards for the animals they purchase. This is primarily
because corporations that sell products to consumers need to understand and manage their supply

135
136 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

chains. It is in a company’s interest to assure its customers that products have certain defined quali-
ties, including that some humane standard has been met. In this way, the retailers are driving change
in the U.S. animal agricultural industries.
The majority of animal products sold come from commodity producers. These farmers and pro-
cessors produce relatively uniform animal products that meet defined minimum standards. Other
“high welfare” animal products are also available for niche markets. Humane nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) have programs to certify animal products as having come from production
systems that are viewed by the NGO as more humane. They use terms such as “natural,” “free-
range,” “cage-free,” “pasture-raised,” and others to convey to their select consumer population that
their products are from farms that meet certain animal welfare qualities, which shoppers deem
important. Typically, these programs also include other non-welfare qualities of food production
such as no antibiotic or hormone use, or that the animals were fed a vegetarian diet (no animal prod-
ucts in the feed). This chapter reviews major programs and practices for oversight of farm animal
welfare for the majority of animal products provided for the commodity markets. Many programs
are in development and are expected over time to be more inclusive of the entire production chain.

QUALITIES OF OVERSIGHT PROGRAMS

Any particular element of animal welfare is subjective, but people generally do not want animals
to experience pain or distress, nor do they like the idea of animals being confined. Judging by
two-thirds of the voters in Florida, Arizona, and California who voted to ban the use of gestation
crates for pregnant sows, crates for veal calves, and cages for laying hens, one can assume that many
Americans do not want farm animals kept in crates and cages. Importantly, most consumers are not
familiar with production practices on commercial farms.
Livestock and poultry producers have focused on providing animal care in the form of a nutritious
diet, a comfortable temperature, and sanitary conditions. They have not focused on, for instance, spa-
cious environments. Economic pressures drive producers to provide the smallest space possible that
still allows for normal animal growth and reproduction. Accommodating animal behavioral needs has
also not been a worry of commodity producers. For example, veal and pork producers have not been
concerned with the fact that animals cannot turn around in their stalls and crates. The consumer, how-
ever, was sufficiently unhappy about the inability to turn around that they voted by popular referendum
to ban gestation crates for sows and battery crates for laying hens. A disconnect between consumer
priorities and farming systems becomes apparent. Likewise, there is a disconnect between what ani-
mal producers and consumers want in on-farm welfare assessment tools. However, new farm animal
welfare programs are being implemented at some level and we expect that they will evolve over time
until the programs more directly reflect the issues consumers and producers think are important.
The role of science in the evolution of these industry programs is of interest and concern, as it is
clearly and easily trumped by consumer/voter preferences. For example, two separate bodies of sci-
entists concluded that sow productivity is similar or equivalent when sows are kept in well-managed
pens or crates (McGlone et al., 2004; Rhodes et al., 2005). Consumers in Florida, Arizona, and
California, however, made their decisions based on something other than scientific evidence. Both
farm animal producers and consumers may accept science as helpful in making decisions but, in
reality, each consumer uses a combination of science plus his or her own sensibilities or ethics to
make a choice at the ballot box.
Economics also usually trump animal welfare. For example, pigs in the United States are castrated.
This is a painful practice (McGlone and Hellman, 1988) done primarily to avoid an off-taste or odor in
meat from boars. In the United Kingdom, they do not castrate, instead minimizing boar odor by pro-
cessing the animals at a much younger age. In the United States, slaughter plant efficiencies drive up
slaughter weights because it takes the same labor to process a 300-lb pig as it does a 200-lb pig. Thus,
the cost of labor is reduced by getting more meat per worker from larger animals. In Brazil and other
countries, some producers have eliminated castration altogether by using an injection that blocks male
Implementing Effective Practices and Programs to Assess Animal Welfare 137

hormones (Pfizer is developing Improvac, which is a vaccine against GnRH that eliminates male sex
hormones). Pork quality is preserved with this method (Gispert et al., 2010). Until this new product is
approved in the United States, economic forces will favor castration as they favor the use of the gesta-
tion crates for commodity pork. The only way to solve problems such as these is through legislation or
retailer requirements; for example, by regulating space requirements for sows in group housing.
Any effective animal welfare oversight program must be credible, workable, and affordable.
Often, credible and affordable oversight programs are at cross-purposes. The most credible program
would have inspectors or video surveillance at every farm all the time; however, this is not affordable
at present. However, video auditing of slaughter plants by an outside auditor company is becoming
more and more common. The Cargill Corporation conducts video audits by an independent auditing
company in all their North American beef and pork plants. A balance must be struck to foster use of
oversight systems that provide as much credibility as can be afforded. This often means that only a
sample of animals can be assessed for short periods for compliance with program goals.
The Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR)
attempted to establish on-farm animal welfare audits through an organization called Sustainable
Environmental Solutions (SES), but the animal industries viewed this program as unacceptable and
the program failed. The animal welfare oversight programs have been directed by the retailers and
developed by each industry group. Retailers are asking for farm animal welfare oversight in the
form of audits of farm animal care and acceptance of the best management practices. Most com-
mercial farms have accepted that it is their responsibility to provide assurances to their customers
(the food retailers) and animal welfare programs that are in development.

INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL INDUSTRY OVERSIGHT PROGRAMS

SwiNE PROGRAm
The National Pork Board (NPB) is the national trade association for commercial pork producers. All
producers who sell live pigs for slaughter are required to pay into the national check-off program.
Therefore, essentially all commercial pork producers in the United States are part of the NPB. The
association started its Swine Welfare Assurance Program (SWAP) some years ago, and its guide-
lines are detailed in the Swine Care Handbook (http://www.pork.org/filelibrary/AnimalWell-Being/
swine%20care%20handbook%202003.pdf). At the same time, there was a program called the Pork
Quality Assurance (PQA) program that had a small animal welfare component and a food safety/
antibiotic control program. The two programs were merged to form the PQA+ program (http://www.
pork.org/Certification/17/pqaPlusMaterials.aspx).
The PQA+ program focuses on 10 good production practices. These practices can be divided
into topics of records, animal identification, education, medications, and animal well-being. The
animal well-being component includes evaluation of the veterinary-client-patient relationship, ani-
mal records, animal observation, animal worker training, emergency back-up systems, and facility
observations. The PQA+ program includes an educational program that ends in producer certifica-
tion (that has to be renewed every 3 years), and an on-site assessment by an educator. A sample of
animals on each farm is observed and documented. This program does not tell retailers or consum-
ers which housing system or production practices are used (e.g., gestation crates or pens). Rather,
it is meant to be an assessment of animal welfare in any production system. Most pork processors
require their suppliers to participate in the PQA+ program.
The PQA+ program has enrolled over 50,000 sites in the United States. Another program is
currently under development to perform a 9-point audit/verification that this program is, in fact,
working. The verifiers are expected to visit 90 sites in 2011 to document whether the industry as a
whole is complying. Assurance that individual farms are providing compliance with the PQA+ or
other programs is expected in the future, but the cost is viewed as a barrier to industry-wide audits
of on-farm animal welfare.
138 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

DAiRY AND BEEF CATTlE PROGRAms

Some good sources of information on dairy cow well-being can be found at www.centerfordairyexcel-
lence.org. Many states also have their own animal care programs published by their university exten-
sion services. For beef cattle, the national beef quality assurance program can be accessed at www.
bqa.org. This website contains industry guidelines on transport, the care and handling of cattle, and a
manual for trainers. The beef and dairy industries are not as far along as the pork industry. However,
many individual or groups of dairy and beef feedlots have animal welfare programs of varying inten-
sity (http://animalagalliance.org/current/home.cfm?Category=Animal_Welfare&Section=Beef).

LAYiNG HEN PROGRAm

The primary national program for egg production by laying hens is the United Egg Producers (UEP).
Not all laying hen producers are members of UEP; however, UEP members claim to sell approxi-
mately 90% of all U.S. eggs (http://www.uepcertified.com/about/). Most UEP members have hens
in battery cages and UEP suggests 98% of hens are currently in battery cages (http://www.uepcerti-
fied.com/program/guidelines/categories/housing-space-feed-water). This means most hens are in
cages with minimum space allowances (e.g., 67 in2 per bird).
The UEP certified program provides on-farm animal welfare assessments. The program includes
assurances that feed and water are provided, as well as management guidelines for molting, han-
dling, transport, euthanasia, biosecurity, and animal health. The UEP also has guidelines for cage-
free egg production.
The EU and California are phasing out the use of battery cages for egg production. It is unclear if
the California egg producers will change their facilities, move out of state, or go out of business.

MEAT BiRD PROGRAms (CHiCKENs AND TURKEYs)

The National Chicken Council (NCC) is the organization that oversees commercial enterprises for
production of meat chickens or broilers. The NCC has guidelines and an audit checklist for broil-
ers and broiler-breeders (http://www.nationalchickencouncil.com/aboutIndustry/detail.cfm?id=19).
There is no formal requirement to comply with this program, although most major chicken produc-
ers do follow these guidelines.
The NCC animal welfare program includes the categories of nutrition and feeding, comfort and
shelter, health care, expression of normal behaviors, and best practices. The on-farm audit has nine
pages with considerable detail. Chickens in the United States are typically kept in bedded large
barns with thousands of other chickens. The broiler industry has not been under attack by activists
or legislative action as in the case for the laying hen industry. Major issues of floor space, animal
health, leg soundness, and euthanasia are included in the chicken audit.
The National Turkey Federation (NTF) is the national organization to which most turkey pro-
ducers belong. They have published animal care best management practices (http://www.eatturkey.
com/foodsrv/pdf/NTF_animal_care.pdf). The program includes guidelines and audits of the turkey
hatchery, poults, and larger turkey barns. The 10-page audit instrument includes bird health and
welfare, and handling and transport of turkeys, along with a biosecurity and facility audit.

NiCHE MARKET PROGRAms

Many niche market programs are available that claim to certify that a higher level of on-farm
animal welfare is provided. Often, these programs include other features such as no antibiotics
or hormones. None of the programs are strictly animal welfare-based, although that is the main
theme. Many audit companies will provide on-farm or in-processing plant audits, and will do so to
any number of standards.
Implementing Effective Practices and Programs to Assess Animal Welfare 139

American Humane Certified has a program called The Humane Touch (http://thehumanetouch.
org/). It has programs for producers of pork, chickens, turkeys, laying hens, buffalo, veal calves,
dairy cows, and beef cattle. American Humane Certified conducts on-farm annual audits of its
certified producers. Certified Humane Raised and Handled is an organization endorsed by 30 other
humane organizations (including HSUS, ASPCA, and others) (http://www.certifiedhumane.org/).
The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) also provides an Animal Welfare Approved program (http://
www.awionline.org/ht/d/sp/i/11779/pid/11779). Besides animal welfare, it emphasizes production by
family farmers. Organic livestock and poultry farms must comply with organic guidelines, which
may include some animal welfare standards. Being certified organic, however, does not automati-
cally mean compliance with any of the other humane organization programs.

OUTCOME VS. INPUT STANDARDS

Welfare standards can be divided into two main categories: (1) outcome based or animal based and
(2) input based. Other names for input-based standards are engineering standards or resource-based
standards. The modern trend in standards for welfare, the environment, and food safety is to use an
outcome-based standard whenever possible (Wray, Main, Green, and Webster, 2003). An example
of an outcome-based standard is scoring of swellings on the legs of dairy cows that are the outcome
of many bad practices such as poor design of the cows’ free-stalls, the wrong type of bedding, or
poor maintenance of the bedding (Fulwider et al., 2007). An input standard would specify exactly
how to design a free-stall for cows. It is not necessary to specify how a free-stall is designed because
a wrong design will be detected by the outcome measure. The movement away from specific engi-
neering design standards is good because a rigid requirement for a specific design can stifle innova-
tion. Producers would be prevented from trying a new design that may improve animal welfare.
The desired types of input standards regulate prohibited practices and prevent severe welfare
problems. Practices that may be prohibited may vary depending on the requirements of a niche
market. For example, many of the guidelines for high welfare niche markets prohibit sow stalls
(American Humane Certified, AWI, and Certified Humane). A common input standard that is used
for many animal species is the maximum ammonia levels allowed for indoor housing. Using an out-
come-based method to measure the bad effects of ammonia on animal health would be too difficult.
A common standard for ammonia is 25 ppm maximum (NIOSH, www.cdc.gov/niosh/npgd0028.
html), but 10 ppm is the goal (Jones, 2005).
When animals or birds are housed in enclosed indoor housing where the animal’s life is depen-
dent on a functional mechanical ventilation system, there must be backup systems for supplying
ventilation when the electric power fails. Animals or birds can die from heat stress if the ventila-
tion fails. Some common backup systems are automatic devices to open the sides of the build-
ing, automatic telephone dialers, diesel generators, or tractor-powered generators. During a welfare
assessment, these backup devices are inspected. An input standard is essential because the outcome
measure of a failure to provide ventilation could be many dead animals. Another common input
standard is minimum space requirements for transport and housing. For some of the organic or
welfare niche market programs, there may be additional input standards such as access to pasture
or straw bedding for pigs.

MEAT PROCESSING PROGRAM

Successful outcome-based measures have been used by buyers of large restaurant companies since
1999 to avoid animal welfare issues in slaughter plants. The use of a simple numerical scoring audit
system has resulted in great improvements (Grandin, 2000, 2005). Vague terms such as “proper”
procedures or providing “adequate” space are avoided because one person’s idea of a proper pro-
cedure may be very different from another person’s idea. Numerical scoring is simple. Like traf-
fic laws, a slaughter plant must achieve a specified level of performance to pass an audit from
140 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

McDonald’s. Plant management knows exactly what is expected and there are five numerically
scored outcome standards (Grandin, 1998a). The complete guideline is on www.animalhandling.
org. To pass a McDonald’s, Wendy’s, or Whole Foods audit, the plant has to achieve a passing score
on all five measures. Another advantage of numerical scoring is that a plant can also determine if
it is improving or becoming worse. A plant will also fail an audit if an act of abuse occurs. Some
examples of acts of abuse are dragging conscious, non-ambulatory animals, beating animals, or
poking sensitive areas. The five numerically scored outcome measures are as follows:

1. Percentage of animals stunned effectively with one application of the stunner. For captive
bolt stunning, the first shot must be effective on 95% of the animals. For electric stunning,
the stunner must be placed correctly on 99% of animals. When the stunner is misapplied,
it must be re-applied immediately before the animal is bled, hoisted, or cut. When this sys-
tem was first started in 1999, only 30% of the beef plants could achieve this level (Grandin,
1998a). This was due to poor stunner maintenance (Grandin, 1998a, 2002). Now, over 90%
of the plants can do this (Grandin, 2005, 2006).
2. Percentage of animals falling anywhere in the facility. For a passing score, the percentage
of animals falling must be 1% or less. Falling is usually an outcome of either slick flooring
or poor handling by people.
3. Percentage of animals vocalizing (bellowing, mooing, or squealing) during stunning or
entry into the stunning area. Vocalization is scored on a per animal basis as either silent
or vocal. To pass an animal welfare audit, vocalization must not exceed 5% of the pigs or
3% of the cattle. If a head holder is used on cattle, a score of 5% is allowed. Vocalization is
correlated in both pigs and cattle with physiological measures of stress (Dunn, 1990; Lay
et al., 1992; Warriss, Brown, and Adams, 1994; and White et al., 1995). In slaughter plants,
vocalizations in cattle are associated with aversive events such as electric prods, missed
stuns, or excessive pressure from a restraint device (Grandin, 1998b, 2003). Vocalization
scoring cannot be used in sheep because they remain silent when they are stressed. Since
the welfare audits started, the percentage of animals vocalizing has decreased greatly. In
1997, the worst plant had 32% of the cows vocalizing. More recent data obtained from
restaurant audits shows that the worst plants are under 10% and the majority of plants have
passing scores of 0% to 2% (www.grandin.com).
4. Insensibility. To pass a welfare audit, 100% of the animals must be unconscious and insen-
sible before hoisting, bleeding, or skinning.
5. Percentage of animals moved with an electric prod. For pigs and cattle, an excellent score
is 5% or less. A minimum passing score is 25% or less. A common question is: “Should
electric prods be banned?” If the prods are totally banned, handlers may resort to more
abusive practices such as poking a stick in the animal’s rectum. However, the OIE (2006)
banned electric prods on small calves, piglets, sheep, and horses. Before the audits were
started, most animals were prodded multiple times with electric prods.

SIMPLE IMPROVEMENTS
Most slaughter plants were able to achieve passing scores by making simple improvements; they did
not have to rebuild their entire facility. Some of these improvements are listed as follows:

1. Train employees in behavioral principles of animal handling (Grandin, 2007; Kilgour and
Dalton, 1984).
2. Install non-slip flooring in unloading ramps and stunning boxes.
3. Install lamps on dark chute entrances because animals tend to move from a dark place to
a brighter place (Grandin, 1982, 1996, 2007; Van Putten and Elshof, 1978).
Implementing Effective Practices and Programs to Assess Animal Welfare 141

4. Move lights to eliminate reflections on shiny surfaces or wet floors. Shadows and high
contrasts of light and dark will cause animals to balk and refuse to move (Tanida, Miura,
Tanaka, and Yoshimoto, 1996).
5. Install solid barriers to prevent animals from seeing moving people and equipment up
ahead, or cover the sides of the races (Grandin, 2007; Kilgour, 1971).
6. Improve maintenance of stunners and store cartridges for captive bolt stunners in a dry
location (Grandin, 2002).

BASIC OUTCOME MEASURES FOR ALL MAMMALS AND BIRDS ON FARMS

These basic outcome measures will help prevent severe welfare problems in agricultural animals
that are raised for food, and can be easily used on farms:

1. Body condition score of breeding stock. Poor body condition may be an outcome of star-
vation, neglect, illness, inadequate diet, or tooth problems in older animals, and animals
may be skinny or emaciated. Charts are available for body condition scoring of dairy cows
(Wildman, Jones, Wagner, and Brown, 1982; University of Wisconsin, 2005), beef cows
(http://www.cowbcs.info/), sows (NPB), and sheep (http://www.smallstock.info/tools/
condscor/cs-sheep.htm). Animals that are emaciated and weak should be euthanized on
the farm.
2. Lameness. Lame animals have poor welfare because lameness causes pain (Rushen,
Pombourceq, and dePaisselle, 2006). It is also an important outcome measure, and can
indicate a variety of problems. For example, foot diseases, poor flooring, or lack of hoof
care can cause lameness in dairy cows. The best 10% of dairies had 5% or less lame cows.
The national average is 24.6% (Espejo, Endres, and Salfer, 2006). Training materials to
assess lameness in cattle can be found in Amstel and Shearer (2006) and online (http://www.
csubeef.com/files/resources/Lameness-Rules_of_Thumbv2.pdf; http://www.merckvetmanual.
com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/90500.htm). For poultry, lameness (gait score) informa-
tion can be found in Knowles et al. (2008).
3. Animal or bird cleanliness. Animals that are housed on poorly maintained litter or in a
muddy feedlot may have manure or mud caked on their bodies. The most common cleanli-
ness scoring systems use a 4-point scale, which ranges from a clean animal to an animal
that has most of its body soiled. When pigs are housed outside with wallows the cleanliness
score would be eliminated, but there must be an area of the pen where the pigs have access
to clean, dry bedding or forage. In poultry, damage to the feet, hocks, and breasts due to
wet or dirty litter can be easily assessed at the slaughter plant.
4. Mortality and morbidity. Health is an essential component of welfare, but it is not the only
component (Fraser, 2008). Fulwider et al. (2007) found that high producing dairy cows
have more leg lesions. Farms with high levels of sickness and death would have poor wel-
fare. Some pigs are more susceptible to going down and becoming non-ambulatory during
handling and transport. The use of beta-agonists to promote growth may make pigs weak
and more difficult to handle (Marchant-Forde et al., 2003).
5. Sores and lesions. Each species and form of housing has specific types and patterns of
lesions and injuries. Dairy cows housed in free-stalls often get swollen hocks (Fulwider et
al., 2007) and sows housed in gestation stalls may develop ulcers (pressure sores) on their
shoulders (Zurbrigg, 2006). Unpublished industry data has shown that sows on farms that
measure rates of shoulder lesions have been able to greatly reduce them by repairing floor-
ing and increasing sow body condition. Sows housed in groups may get severe wounds
from fighting. In poultry, birds may inflict severe wounds on each other. Research has
shown, in both pigs and chickens, that there are genetic differences in the tendency to fight
or inflict wounds on other animals or birds (Muir and Craig, 1998; LØvendahl et al., 2005).
142 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Improving the success of group-housed sows and cage-free chickens may require changes
in animal genetics.
6. Coat or feather condition. Animals that have lice or other external parasites will often
have bald spots or poor coat condition. In poultry, poor feather condition is associated
with feather pecking from other birds, rubbing on the cage or other enclosure, or dirty
litter. LayWel (http://www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/deliverables%2031-33%20health.pdf) has
excellent feather condition scoring charts. One must remember that birds molt and most
mammals will shed hair in the spring. Molting or shedding of hair must not be confused
with poor coat or feather condition that is caused by external parasites or abrasions from
housing.
7. Easily observed behavioral problems. Some examples are cribbing in horses, bar biting in
sows housed without fibrous bedding, self-injurious behavior, urine sucking in calves, and
tail biting in pigs. Obviously, a behavior that inflicts either self-injury or injury to another
animal is detrimental to animal welfare. Other abnormal behaviors, such as tongue rolling
in dairy cattle, do not cause damage to the animal. It is beyond the scope of this chapter
to discuss all the welfare implications of abnormal behaviors or the scientific research on
behavioral needs, although research clearly shows that some behaviors are highly moti-
vated (Van der Weerd and Day, 2009; Duncan and Kite, 1989).
8. Animal handling practices. Handling of animals on the farm can be assessed using similar
measures as the ones discussed previously for slaughter plants. The National Cattlemen’s
Beef Association has a scoring system for vocalization, falling, electric prod score, and exit
speed from the squeeze chute. This can be used during routine handling procedures such
as vaccination or pregnancy checking on the ranch or feedlot. The outcomes of poor han-
dling can also be assessed. Rough handling of cattle or poultry during loading for transport
significantly raises the level of bruising and broken wings (Grandin, 2010). Injuries from
abusive handling, such as broken tails in dairy cows, can also be easily assessed when a
welfare assessor walks through the herd.
9. Thermal stress. Heat stress both during transport and on the farm is becoming an increas-
ingly important issue because both cattle and poultry are being grown to heavier weights.
To prevent heat stress in chickens, growers have installed water-cooled ventilation systems.
Modern, fast-growing pigs are also more susceptible to heat stress. Cattle or birds that
are panting are severely heat stressed. Mader, Davis, and Brown-Branl (2005) developed
a simple panting scoring system for cattle. Cattle that exhibit opened mouth panting are
severely heat stressed and they are in danger of dying unless they are given relief. Cold
stress is less of a thermal welfare problem overall in livestock and poultry enterprises
unless frostbite is present.

DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE MEASURES

All the measures that have been discussed can be observed directly by an assessor who visits a
slaughter plant or farm. They are not based on paperwork. There is an unfortunate tendency in some
auditing systems to have an overemphasis on paperwork. There are often situations where all paper-
work can be in order and the physical conditions of both the animals and the facility are bad.

THREE TYPES OR LEVELS OF ANIMAL WELFARE AUDITS

The most effective animal welfare and food safety auditing programs conducted by major retailers
have three parts. They are: (1) internal audits done on the farm or plant; (2) outside audits done by
a third party, independent of an auditing company; and (3) audits done by representatives of the
retailer. In typical restaurant auditing programs, all of the slaughter plants are visited every year
by a third-party auditor and a small percentage are visited by the retailer. Most large commodity
Implementing Effective Practices and Programs to Assess Animal Welfare 143

companies that raise poultry or pigs have field staff who visit every farm monthly for an internal
audit. Only a small portion of the farms is visited by a retailer or an auditing company. It would be
too expensive for a retailer to visit all the commodity farms. Some specialized niche programs have
either field staff or a third-party auditor visiting each farm on a fixed schedule (once per year or
once per three years, for example). A retailer can easily audit 50 to 75 slaughter plants every year,
but auditing hundreds of commodity farms annually becomes cost prohibitive.

COMMENTS MUST BE CLEAR

It is impossible to eliminate all subjectivity so, when something is in noncompliance with a pub-
lished welfare standard, clear comments that describe what the assessor observed are essential.
Vague comments such as “poor handling of pigs” provide little useful information. An example of
a more clearly written comment would be “The handler kicked approximately 20 pigs as hard as he
could.” This would be a serious abusive event. A clear comment enables fairer judgment to be made
on whether a farm or plant should be removed from an approved supplier list.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

There is a disconnect between what retailers and consumers want and what the industries and niche
market producers are providing. Commodity programs focus on providing basic needs of food,
water, and shelter, but consumers also expect an ethical/emotional standard of animal welfare to
be met (e.g., no battery cages or individual housing of sows or veal calves). Niche market animal
welfare labels include more than just animal welfare in order to capture niche markets. However, it
is unclear if a facility’s adherence to an animal welfare niche market label automatically signifies
all-around good animal welfare. Dairy cows raised under organic conditions have reduced lameness
due to spending time on pasture, but internal and external parasites may be a greater problem due
to restrictions in the use of pharmaceuticals (Rutherford et al., 2008). In addition, all niche market
programs allow castration of pigs and cattle without anesthesia. Economics is still a major factor in
animal welfare even within niche market programs.
For those consumers who want improved animal welfare on farms, it will come at some cost.
That increased cost is not known in many cases and individual producers cannot provide those
products and put themselves at an economic disadvantage with their peers. Still, we see incremental
improvement in both farm animal care and oversight of animal welfare on commercial farms. This
is driven mostly by retailers who seek such assurances, but they too are unwilling to pay much more
for the same products that carry animal welfare assurances.

REFERENCES
Duncan, I.J.M. and Kite, V.G. (1989) Nest box selection and nest building behavior in the domestic hens,
Animal Behavior, 37:215–231.
Dunn, C.S. (1990) Stress reaction in cattle undergoing ritual slaughter using two methods of restraint, Veterinary
Record, 126:522–525.
Espejo, L.A., Endres, M.I., and Salfer, J.A. (2006) Prevalence of lameness in high-producing Holstein cows
housed in freestall barns in Minnesota, Journal of Dairy Science, 89:3052–3058.
Fraser, D. (2008) Understanding Animal Welfare, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Fulwider, W.K., Grandin, T., Garrick, D.J., Engle, T.E., Lamm, W.D., Dalsted, N.L., and Rollin, B.E. (2007)
Influence of free-stall base on tarsal joint lesions and hygiene in dairy cows, Journal of Dairy Science,
90:3559–3566.
Gispert, M., Angeles, O.M., Velarde, A., Suarez, P., Perez, J., and Fontifurnois, M. (2010). Carcass and meat
quality characteristics of immunocastrated male, surgically castrated male, and entire male and female
pigs, Meat Science, 85:664–670.
Grandin, T. (1982) Pig behavior studies applied to slaughter plant design, Applied Animal Ethology,
9:141–151.
144 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Grandin, T. (1996) Factors that impede animal movement in slaughter plants, Journal of American Veterinary
Medical Association, 209:757–759.
Grandin, T. (1998a) Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices in slaughter plants, Journal
American Veterinary Medical Association, 212:36–39.
Grandin, T. (1998b) The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during slaugh-
ter, Applied Animal Behavior Science, 56:121–128.
Grandin, T. (2000) Effect of animal welfare audits of slaughter plants by a major fast food company on cattle han-
dling and stunning practices, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 216:848–851.
Grandin, T. (2002) Return to sensibility problems after penetrating captive bolt stunning of cattle in commercial
slaughter plants, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 221:1258–1261.
Grandin, T. (2003) Cattle vocalizations are associated with handling and equipment problems at beef slaughter
plants, Applied Animal Behavior Science, 71:191–201.
Grandin, T. (2005) Maintenance of good animal welfare standards in beef slaughter plants by use of auditing
programs, Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, 226:370–373.
Grandin, T. (2006) Progress and challenges in animal handling and slaughter in the U.S., Applied Animal
Behaviour Science, 100:129–139.
Grandin, T. (2007) Livestock Handling and Transport, 3rd ed. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI
International.
Grandin, T. (2010) Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI
International.
Jones, E.K.M. (2005) Avoidance of atmospheric ammonia by domestic fowl and the effect of early experience,
Applied Animal Behavior Science, 90:293–308.
Kilgour, R. 1971. Animal handling in works, pertinent behaviour studies. 13th Meat Industry Research
Conference. Hamiltion, New Zealand, pp. 9–12.
Kilgour, R. and Dalton, D.C. 1984. Livestock Behaviour: A Practical Guide. Collins Technical Books. Glasgow,
UK.
Knowles, T.G., Kestin, S.C., Hasslam, S.M. et al. (2008) Leg disorders in broiler chickens: Prevalence, risk
factors and prevention, PLOS One, 3(2):e1545.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001545
Lay, D.C., Friend, T.H., Randel, R.D., Bowers, C.L., Grissom, K.K., and Jenkins, O.C. (1992) Behavioral and
physiological effects of freeze and hot iron branding on crossbred cattle, Journal of Animal Science,
70:330–336.
LØvendahl, P.L., Darngaard, L.H., Nielsen, B.L., Thodberg, K., Su, G., and Rydhmer, L. (2005) Aggressive
behavior in sows at mixing and maternal behavior are heritable and genetically correlated traits, Livestock
Production Science, 93:73–85.
Mader, T.L., Davis M.S., and Brown-Branl, T. (2005) Environmental factors influencing heat stress in feedlot
cattle, Journal of Animal Science, 84:712–719.
Marchant-Forde, J.N., Lay, D.C., Pajor, J.A., Richert, B.T., and Schinckel, A.P. (2003) The effects of racto-
pamine on the behavior and physiology of finishing pigs, Journal of Animal Science, 81:416–422.
McGlone, J.J. and Hellman, J.M. (1988) Local and general anesthetic effects on the behavior and performance
of two and seven week-old castrated and uncastrated piglets, Journal of Animal Science, 66:3049–3058.
McGlone, J.J., von Borell, E., Deen, J., Johnson, A.K., Levis, D.G., Meunier-Salaun, M., Morrow, J., Reeves,
D., Salak-Johnson, J.L., and Sundberg, P.L. (2004) Review: Compilation of the scientific literature com-
paring housing systems for gestating sows and gilts using measures of physiology, behavior, performance
and health, Professional Animal Scientist, 20:105–117.
Muir, W.M. and Craig, J.V. 1998. Improving animal well-being through genetic selection. Poultry Science,
77:1781–1788.
OIE. (2006) Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare, terrestrial animal health code, World
Animal Health Organization, Paris, France.
Rhodes, T.R., Appleby, M.C., Chinn, K., Douglas, L., Firkins, L.D., Houpt, K.A., McGlone, J.J., Sundberg,
P., Tokach, L., and Wills, R.W. 2005 A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows, Journal of
American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA), 227(10):1580–1590.
Rushen, J., Pombourceq, E., and dePaisselle, A.M. (2006) Validation of two measures of lameness in dairy
cows, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 106:173–177.
Rutherford, K.M., Langford, F.M., Jack, M.C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A.B., and Haskell, M.J. (2008)
Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom,
Veterinary Journal, May 5, 2009.
Tanida, H., Miura, A., Tanaka, T., and Yoshimoto, T. (1996) Behavioral responses of piglets to darkness and
shadows, Applied Animal Behavior Science, 49:173–183.
Implementing Effective Practices and Programs to Assess Animal Welfare 145

University of Wisconsin. 2005. Body condition score (dairy cattle). http://dairynutrient.wisc.edu/302/page.

php?id=36 Accessed 9-12-2011.
van Amstel, S.R. and Shearer, J. 2006. Manual for the treatment and control of lameness in cattle. Blackwell
Publishing. Oxford, UK.
Van de Weerd, H.A. and Day, J.E.L. (2009) A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive
housing systems, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 116:1–20.
van Putten, G. and Elshof, W.J. 1978. Observations on the effect of transport on the well being and lean quality
of slaughter pigs. Animal Regulation Studies, 1:247–271.
Warriss, P.D., Brown, S.N., and Adams, S.I.M. (1994) Relationship between subjective and objective assess-
ment stress at slaughter and meat quality in pigs, Meat Science, 38:329–340.
White, R.G., DeShazer, I.A., Tressler, C.J., Borcher, G.M., Davey, S., Waninge, A., Parkhurst, A.M., Milanuk,
M.J., and Clems, E.T. (1995) Vocalizations and physiological response of pigs during castration with and
without anesthetic, Journal of Animal Science, 73:381–386.
Wray, H.R., Main, D.C.J., Green, L.E., and Webster, A.J.F. (2003) Assessment of welfare of dairy cattle using
animal based measurements, direct observations, and investigation of farm records, Veterinary Record,
153:197–202.
Wildman, E.F., Jones, G.M., Wagner, P.E., and Brown, R.L. (1982) A dairy cow body condition scoring system
and its relationship to selected production characteristics, Journal of Dairy Science, 65:495–501.
Zurbrigg, K. (2006) Sow shoulder lesions: Risk factors and treatment effects on an Ontario farm, Journal of
Animal Science, 84:2509–2514.
 8 Animal Welfare
Synthesizing Contemporary Animal
Agriculture/Engineering and Animal
Comfort and Social Responsibility
Bernard E. Rollin, John J. McGlone, Judith L.
Capper, Kenneth Anderson, and Terry Engle

CONTENTS
Prologue.......................................................................................................................................... 148
Swine............................................................................................................................................... 149
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 149
Pig and Pork Production Systems.............................................................................................. 150
References.................................................................................................................................. 153
Dairy Cattle..................................................................................................................................... 154
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 154
Unique Aspects of Dairy Production in Animal Welfare Issues................................................ 154
Physical Environment............................................................................................................ 155
Disease Prevention and Treatment........................................................................................ 157
Nutrition................................................................................................................................ 160
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 160
References.................................................................................................................................. 161
Poultry............................................................................................................................................. 162
Poultry and Poultry Production Systems................................................................................... 162
Hatchery..................................................................................................................................... 163
Beak Trimming, Dubbing/De-snooding, and Toe Trimming..................................................... 164
Husbandry Practices................................................................................................................... 166
Euthanasia.................................................................................................................................. 168
Transport and Catching.............................................................................................................. 170
References.................................................................................................................................. 170
Beef Cattle...................................................................................................................................... 175
Social Behavior.......................................................................................................................... 176
Environmental Stressors............................................................................................................. 176
Cold Stress................................................................................................................................. 176
Heat Stress.................................................................................................................................. 177
Pen Design................................................................................................................................. 178
Management Stressors............................................................................................................... 178
The Challenge............................................................................................................................ 180
References.................................................................................................................................. 180

147
148 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

PROLOGUE
Bernard E. Rollin
In earlier chapters, we discussed the way in which animal agriculture moved from being based
on animal husbandry to an industrial approach. We also discussed the ever-increasing societal
demand in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand for the restoration of the kind of
respect for animals’ biological and psychological needs and natures that was historically presup-
positional to good husbandry and thereby more or less guaranteed good welfare for agricultural
animals.
It is evident that the sort of extensive, pastoral agriculture that was historically dominant would
be difficult if not impossible to achieve in the current socioeconomic milieu. Much prime grazing
land has been transmuted into urban and suburban commercial property and housing, with less than
1% of the American public engaged in animal agriculture as a vocation. Both the escalating value of
land and the major population increases experienced in most Western countries makes the restora-
tion of pastoral animal agriculture a practical impossibility. Only Western cattle ranching, and to a
lesser extent sheep ranching, have protected large tracts of private land from rapacious development,
and such preservation requires increasing ingenuity. How, then, is society to meet the major demand
for animal products, while still acknowledging and respecting ever-increasing demands for animal
welfare based on the model of animal husbandry?
The answer to this very difficult conundrum lies in reassessing the conceptual basis for indus-
trialized agriculture. As was pointed out earlier, those who developed these systems assumed that
if animals were economically productive, they were necessarily experiencing positive welfare. We
have pointed out that while such an argument was quite legitimate under husbandry conditions, it
had considerably less validity for industrialization, where animals could have various aspects of
their welfare requirements ignored, yet still be economically productive. For example, numerous
scholars have argued that sows maintained in gestation crates experience compromised welfare by
virtue of their inability to engage in normal, species-specific behaviors and because of their marked
limitations in movement.
At the same time, the field of animal behavior and animal welfare science has provided us
with tools for understanding animal natures and needs. One very valuable approach to this issue
has been the development of animal preference testing as a way of determining the sorts of
accommodations, feedstuffs, light cycles, ambient temperatures, and so on, that animals will
consistently choose. Marion Dawkins pointed out one important caveat regarding this approach
when she cautioned that animals, as much as people, may have preferences that are not in their
best interest.
What is needed, then, is the redesign of these confinement systems with a conscious demand for
incorporating into them accommodation to animals’ needs and natures, what I, following Aristotle,
have called animal telos—the “pigness” of the pig, the “cowness” of the cow. Much spadework
has already been done in this area in Great Britain and in Europe, where the demand for welfare-
friendly reform of confinement systems developed considerably earlier than in the United States.
Thus, there is no need to start completely cold; various modified systems have been developed and
tested in other countries. In the United States, a variety of people have worked on such systems.
Particularly notable is Temple Grandin’s work on incorporating knowledge of cattle behavior into
feedlot pen design, slaughterhouse systems, transport systems, restraint devices, and so on. Grandin
has demonstrated that welfare-friendly systems are not only congenial to the animals, but also they
are easier to implement, and in many cases, increase profit.
In this chapter, individual animal scientists specializing in swine (McGlone), dairy cattle
(Capper), poultry (Anderson), and beef cattle (Engle), address progress and concerns prominent in
meeting animal welfare needs and goals.
Animal Welfare 149

SWINE
John J. McGlone
INTRODUCTiON
To produce animal products in sufficient quantities and of the quality desired, humans keep animals
in production systems. The driving force for development of production systems in the last century
has been to develop systems that produce quality products at the lowest possible cost. In real current
dollars, animal meats are less expensive today than they were years ago. The cost of production, for
example, for pigs and poultry was higher in 1950 than it is today. The cost of labor is less; in 1945, it
required 5 hours per 100 pounds of broilers, but by 1980, the labor requirement was far less than 15
minutes per 100 pounds of broiler produced. Feed efficiency (pound of feed consumed per pound of
weight gain) was cut in half in both pigs and poultry. Pigs weaned per litter increased from 7 to over
9 pigs per sow. Chicken went from 40 cents per pound in 1960 (in 1960 dollars) to approximately
80 cents per pound—without the technological advances, chicken would have been over $1.60 per
pound in 1995. When retail broiler prices are deflated, the retail cost has lowered from $2.20 per
pound to less than $1 per pound from 1955 to 1979; pork has similarly declined in consumer cost
by 30% (Martinez, 1999). Vertical integration and the wonders of science have brought us what we
wanted—less expensive animal products. But at what cost?
Often in society, driving toward a single goal results in unintended consequences. Older animal
producers who can still remember older production systems will be frustrated at society’s concerns
about production methods. They may say:

“They wanted inexpensive meat. We gave it to them. Then they wanted meat with less fat. We gave it
to them. Then they wanted it to taste good, not pollute the environment, be safe to eat, and be good for
the animal’s welfare.”

The drive toward low-cost, intensive animal production systems has resulted in a laundry list of
unintended consequences. Among them are real or perceived concerns:

• Food safety, including bacterial contamination, especially antibiotic-resistant bacteria

• Movement of viruses among animals and people, potentially creating new, more virulent
strains
• Healthfulness of animal products containing fat in unacceptable quantities and qualities
• Environmental pollution of water, air, and soil
• Worker health and safety issues including injuries and respiratory problems
• Animal welfare concerns

It is important when trying to focus on animal welfare concerns that we not be distracted by
other important societal concerns. More importantly, if we are to make progress on animal welfare
concerns, it is important to do so without losing ground on other societal issues (McGlone, 2001).
We simply must develop sustainable production systems—those that produce wholesome products
with positive impacts on society’s concerns.
The philosophers have not been much help in defining animal rights and welfare. Peter Singer
argues for animal liberation by taking a utilitarian cost-benefit approach while dismissing the
notion of animal rights. Tom Regan dismisses the utilitarian approach in favor of an animal rights
approach. Matthew Scully dismisses both the utilitarian approach and the rights approach in favor
of a theology-based care for animals that serve humans as a quality food. If no clear, logical, defen-
sible theme surfaces for animal rights/liberation/theology, then the concept is of little use. Instead,
150 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

we must provide for the best animal welfare that is possible in a practical way. Providing for sound
animal welfare may be more easily said than done.
Once one morally accepts that animals may be humanely killed for our palate, then animal
welfare can focus on how best to breed, grow, transport, and kill animals so that their welfare is
accommodated. This may not be completely possible. For example, animals must be transported to
be “processed.” The first transport experience (and often the last) for most growing food animals is
a novel, frightening experience. While it is possible to ameliorate that negative experience, this will
have to be a research and development goal—it is simply not possible at this time.
Other practices involve pain. Everyone, including farmers, agree that causing pain to farm ani-
mals is not good for their welfare. However, the marketplace makes demands on the production sys-
tem. Animals are castrated to avoid behavioral problems and bad odor, and to increase meat quality
(more marbling). Castration hurts. Some countries have banned castration of pigs (e.g., Norway),
some do not castrate (Denmark), and some require anesthesia for the procedure (Belgium and the
Netherlands), but most male pigs in the world are castrated. And in the United States most beef
cattle fed in feedlots are castrated without anesthesia or analgesia. More will be discussed on this
topic in the species sections.
Besides the seemingly inevitable distress and pain associated with production systems, society
has other animal welfare issues. They might prefer that animals have more space, that social ani-
mals not be housed individually, and that there be some relief to the interminable boredom, which,
to the casual observer, must be present when large numbers of animals are kept in relatively barren
environments with feed, water, and a comfortable thermal environment meeting their physical and
physiological needs. Resolving the long list of animal welfare concerns of intensive animal agricul-
ture will take some time and a great deal of effort.
In manufacturing (a negative term when referring to animal systems), one strives for continuous
improvement in the production process. Will those caring consumers be satisfied with continuous
improvement in animal systems or must our systems be abruptly overhauled? Moreover, if we are to
change our modern systems, do we have systems to move toward that improve animal welfare while
not losing ground on other societal issues? How much time do we have?

PiG AND PORK PRODUCTiON SYsTEms

The modern pork production system is a marvel of efficiency. Many farms produce 25 pigs per sow
per year. A 280-lb pig is grown from a 3-lb piglet in 6 months with less than 3-lb of feed to produce
each pound of body weight gain. These would have been unthinkable numbers 50 years ago, even
20 years ago. The wonders of genetic selection, improvements in animal health products, a better
understanding of nutrition, and use of environmentally controlled barns has allowed animal scien-
tists, veterinarians, and engineers to create these improvements.
Pigs were kept outdoors for most of the last few millennia. Just as feral pigs in the southern
United States today have parasites and zoonotic diseases, the outdoor pigs of the past were largely
unhealthy. Diseases like hog cholera and foot and mouth were common in U.S. pigs (they are now
eradicated). Most farm pigs had internal and external parasites. Although they had mud to wallow in
and earth to root, they had significant health problems. How were those problems to be solved?
The simple answer was that they were moved indoors—not indoors on earthen floors, but on
sanitizable metal, plastic, and concrete slatted flooring. It is indeed a rarity to find internal or external
parasites on farmed pigs in the United States today. Bacterial diseases are largely under control. Of
course, “new” pig viruses have emerged such as PRRS and PCV (porcine reproductive and respira-
tory syndrome virus and porcine circovirus)—viruses that either were not present or were not detected
when pigs were mostly outdoors. Still, the modern pork producer can bring in healthy pigs, hold them
inside buildings in isolation from other pigs, and have a good chance of keeping out these pathogens.
The pig industry in the United States, the American pork producers, has not actually conducted a
survey to know the percentage of pigs kept indoors. Maybe they are afraid to know. The percentage
Animal Welfare 151

of pigs indoors is well over 90%. Of those, most are in standardized systems that result in very high
levels of productivity. In 2008, just 20 pork producers had approximately 3 million sows of the 5
million in the United States (The Pig Site, 2008). Continued vertical integration and consolidation
are likely as profit margins shrink for commodity pork production.
The most common production system for pigs in the United States is to have pregnant sows in
gestation crates, lactating sows and piglets in farrowing crates, boars in all-male boar studs produc-
ing semen for artificial insemination, and weaned pigs on cleanable slotted flooring, all in mechani-
cally ventilated buildings.
Animal welfare issues that are real or perceived in modern pork production units include:

• Crating of pregnant sows

• Crating of lactating sows
• Tail docking without anesthesia
• Castration without anesthesia
• Slatted, non-rootable flooring
• Transportation
• Euthanasia of ill or injured pigs
• Boredom
• Lack of sufficient space
• Injury to bone and lameness
• Wounds, scratches, and abscesses
• Health problems, usually respiratory and enteric
• Rough handling of pigs by people

It is now illegal (or soon will be illegal) to keep pregnant sows in gestation crates in some
American states. This issue is frustrating for mainstream pig industry folks because they truly
believe that pregnant sows are fine or even better off in gestation crates than in group housing. Then
we have the AVMA and leading animal scientists writing reviews of the scientific literature and
reaching the same conclusion: The welfare of sows in gestation crates is no better or worse than
sows in group housing systems (Rhodes et al., 2005; McGlone et al., 2004). However, the public
clearly perceives the gestation crate as an animal welfare problem.
One of the concerns about sows in individual gestation crates is the expression of stereotyped
behaviors. Sows in gestation crates bite the bars, and they chew, root, and lick the bars, floor, fenc-
ing, and feeder. For an individually kept sow, it appears that the sow is experiencing behaviors
associated with frustration or boredom. However, these stereotyped behaviors are caused by mecha-
nisms that are yet undefined. We are not sure they are frustrated.
Many of the studies of gestating sows where the crate and group systems are compared do not
have equal penning materials, sow previous experiences, or management (flooring, feeding, etc.).
When all else is held constant, sows express about the same level of stereotyped behaviors when
kept in indoor group pens and crates. Hulbert and McGlone (2006) found pregnant sows in drop-fed
crates showed 2.23% of their time in stereotyped oral-nasal-facial (ONF) behaviors, while pregnant
sows in groups showed 2.24% of their time engaged in this behavior. It could be that (1) stereotyped
behavior is not indicative of a problem (or stress), (2) that both the crate and pen similarly lack
enrichment and thus cause issues, or (3) neither the crate nor the pen induces a particular behavioral
problem when well managed. Showing 2.2% of their time in ONF stereotyped behavior might not
seem like a lot of time; however, sows spent 96% of their time lying down, so in effect, sows are
spending about half of their active moments engaged in ONF stereotyped behaviors. That an animal
spends half its active time engaged in a behavior that we do not understand is worthy of study.
Sows in gestation crates do not move much. This has been reported to cause problems with their
feet and legs. However, the work that has attempted to show this was inadequately controlled and so
objective information to support this observation is lacking.
152 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Think about a pregnant sow that is well cared for in an individual crate. She is hungry because
we have bred pigs to grow fast and large and, to prevent obesity, we must limit their feed—so they
are often hungry. She has a comfortable thermal environment, but for a dominant sow at least, she
may experience a problem because she does not have the ability to interact socially. For the sub-
missive sows, they may have a problem with group housing. The industry has traded one welfare
concern (social stress) for another (boredom and social isolation) largely to accommodate economic
pressures. To provide an individual environment is positive for welfare. However, why does the
space have to be so small? It is so you can get more sows in each expensive building if they have
the absolutely least amount of space with which they can get by. Group-housed sows need approxi-
mately 20 sq. ft per sow; crated sows need only 14 sq. ft each.
One could keep pregnant sows individually in larger pens (rather than crates). This would allow
them to turn around, but not fully socially interact (including not wound each other through aggres-
sive social interactions). Why is this not done? Economics. Once you decide to give sows more
space, then you remove penning/fencing materials to lower the cost of the building. If a new build-
ing were built, one could have individual pens with more penning materials or group housing with
less penning materials. Once the decision is made to give them more space, then economics drives
the decision toward group housing.
Therefore, the gestation crate imposes two constraints on the sow that are problems perceived
by the public: Too little space and lack of social interaction. American state laws lack detail to dis-
tinguish between these two. Moreover, a pork producer could keep group-housed sows in spaces of
less than 14 sq. ft per sow, which would introduce a crowding-induced welfare problem of increased
skin lesions (Salak-Johnson et al., 2007).
In visiting a reported “high welfare” farm in Sweden, McGlone (2006) found very high levels of
wounds and scratches on straw-bedded, group-housed pregnant sows and high piglet mortality in
loose-housed lactating sows. So even when the public perceives a welfare problem and takes regula-
tory action, they may, in fact, cause the use of systems that introduce new stressors.
What would be a welfare-friendly system for pregnant sows? Clearly, if one applies all the fea-
tures that are important to the public (more space, straw, social interaction), the sows can still expe-
rience considerable social stress and lack of reproductive performance (McGlone, 2006). To reduce
the stress of social groups requires more space. In the outdoor system, aggression-related scratches
and wounds are virtually non-existent. However, the zoonotic and pig disease challenges (including,
in particular, influenza, internal parasites, and Salmonella) and uncontrolled manure flows offset
the welfare advantages for the outdoor system. What we are left with is finding indoor systems that
accommodate the individual sow’s needs for social protection and access to feed. This ideal system
would have an enriched, spacious indoor environment, with individual, safe feeding stations. Such
a system, when it is eventually designed and tested, may not be affordable given today’s economic
pressures in pork production systems.
Gestation crates cause arguable welfare problems. What about other issues? Nobody has argued
that castration and tail docking are good for the welfare of pigs. Both procedures intentionally cause
pain, distress, and behavioral disruptions for economic reasons. We castrate pigs primarily because
of an off-flavor and odor in boar meat. However, they do not castrate in the U.K. and Denmark.
Denmark is a major exporter of pork. How is this possible? It is because they market pigs at a lighter
weight and they test for boar odor.
Economics favors “processing” pigs at heavier weights. It is the same labor to turn the live pig
into a carcass if the live pig is 300 lb or 220 lb. You get more meat per worker and per physical plant
investment. Castration—the induction of intentional pain and distress—is performed entirely for
economic reasons in the pig industry.
Tail docking is the same story. Pigs tail bite when they are housed indoors on concrete floors
(solid or slatted). When they have bedding, they bite less often. When they are outdoors, they still
may tail bite, but at a very low level. The housing system—introduced to lower diseases and improve
pig performance—causes this behavioral problem. More expensive buildings (with more space and
Animal Welfare 153

straw bedding, for example) or outdoor rearing would significantly reduce tail biting to the point
that tail docking would not be needed. However, several studies report that pigs kept outdoors or
on straw have a higher prevalence of Salmonella (van der Wolf et al., 2001; Calloway et al., 2005).
Most people would not want to choose between a food safety risk and an animal welfare benefit.
People would probably want an assurance that their meat is not contaminated and that the animals
experienced a healthy life, including their behavioral health.
The animal welfare problem of small spaces and barren, boring environments is a concern
throughout pig production (lactating sows, weaned and growing pigs, pregnant sows, and boars).
We cannot say pigs under our care are entitled to enrichment; at least thus far, this has only been
legislated for laboratory non-human primates and dogs, but not farm animals. However, enrichment
in barren environments is recommended for animals in teaching and research protocols, but not on
commercial farms at this time.
If one were to ask a pork producer or an active pig welfare scientist, they would say that the major
issues of pig welfare revolve around (1) pig health including not just infectious diseases, but also
wounds, injury, and behavioral problems and (2) procedures we are forced to perform (castration,
tail docking, transport) for economic reasons. The public has only learned about close confinement
of sows from activist political activities. The public is very disconnected from commercial pork
production—they don’t know what happens on the farm. Because so few people actually raise pigs,
they cannot afford to educate the public. Nor would producers be willing to put themselves at an
economic disadvantage by providing more quality space, enriched environments, or marketing to
avoid pig castration.
Alternative pork products are available that meet some animal welfare standards; particularly
things like no gestation crates (which may be the only appreciable difference between some ani-
mal welfare certified products and conventional products) or access to outdoors (free range). In the
absence of legislative action, and given the economic realities of animal production, any change
in the name of animal welfare will be made based on market forces. If people start buying alter-
native products, more will be produced. In the mean time, activists will continue to chip away at
conventional pork production to make changes that the public may perceive as positive for animal
welfare.

REFERENCEs
Callaway, T.R., J.L. Morrow, A.K. Johnson, J.W. Dailey, F.M. Wallace, E.A. Wagstrom, J.J. McGlone, A.R.
Lewis, S.E. Dowd, T.L. Poole, T.S. Edrington, R.C. Anderson, K.J. Genovese, J.A. Byrd, R.B. Harvey,
and D.J. Nisbet. 2005. Environmental prevalence and persistence of Salmonella spp. in outdoor swine
wallows. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 2(3): 263–273.
Hulbert, L.E., and J.J. McGlone. 2006. Evaluation of drop versus trickle-feeding systems for crated or group-
penned gestating sows. Journal of Animal Science. 84: 1004–1014.
Martinez, S.W. 1999. Verticial coordination in the pork and broiler industries: Implications for pork and chicken
products. Agricultural Economic Report No. 777. http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/33407/1/
CAT10872618.pdf
McGlone, J.J. 2001. Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: Toward sustainable systems.
Livestock Production Science. 72: 75–81.
McGlone, J.J. 2006. Comparison of sow welfare in the Swedish deep-bedded system and the US crated-sow
system. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229: 1377–1380.
McGlone, J.J., E. von Borell, J. Deen, A.K. Johnson, D.G. Levis, M. Meunier-Salaun, J. Morrow, D. Reeves,
J.L. Salak-Johnson, and P.L. Sundberg. 2004. Review: Compilation of the scientific literature comparing
housing systems for gestating sows and gilts using measures of physiology, behavior, performance and
health. Professional Animal Scientist. 20: 105–117.
The Pig Site. 2008. Pork powerhouse. http://www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/18994/pork-commentary-pork-
powerhouse
Rhodes, T.R., M.C. Appleby, K. Chinn, L. Douglas, L.D. Firkins, K.A. Houpt, C., J.J. McGlone, P. Sundberg,
L. Tokach, and R.W. Wills. 2005 A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) 227(10): 1580–1590.
154 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Salak-Johnson, J.L., S.R. Niekamp, S.L. Rodriguiez-Zas, M. Ellis, and S.E. Cirtis. 2007. Space allowance for
dry, pregnant sows in pens: Body condition, skin lesions, and performance. Journal of Animal Science.
85: 1758–1769.
Van der Wolf, P.J., A.R.W. Elbers, H.M.J.F. van der Heijden, F.W. van Schie, W.A. Hunneman, and M.J.M.
Tielen. 2001. Salmonella seroprevelance at the population and herd level in pigs in the Netherlands.
Veterinary Microbiology. 80: 171–184.

DAIRY CATTLE
Judith L. Capper
INTRODUCTiON
Animal welfare concerns usually center around three areas of focus—productivity, ability to express
“natural” behaviors, and the absence of pain or suffering (Fraser et al., 1997). Nonetheless, it can be
argued that dairy cattle welfare is a function of the three aforementioned criteria, with notable inter-
connections between each issue. The degree to which husbandry systems satisfy the mental and physi-
cal needs of dairy cattle is somewhat difficult to assess. Traditionally, animal productivity has been
accepted as an indicator of animal welfare—with higher productivity (milk yield, fertility, growth rate)
implying that the animal’s needs are met to a satisfactory degree. There can be no doubt that in the
case of the lactating dairy cow, sustained high productivity cannot be achieved in the absence of good
welfare. Nonetheless, other parameters such as physiological data (circulating hormone and enzyme
concentrations, heart rate, immunosuppression), measures of morbidity and mortality, and behavioral
adaptations that suggest compromised welfare or adoption of coping strategies provide indicators by
which we can benchmark the effects of differing management practices or husbandry systems.

UNiQUE AsPECTs OF DAiRY PRODUCTiON iN ANimAl WElFARE IssUEs

Animal welfare is often related to the animal’s ability to express natural behaviors (von Keyserlingk
et al., 2009). Concern exists that animals kept under conditions considered abnormal may suffer,
although abnormality is difficult to define in modern livestock. The issue of natural behavior
expression may be overtaken by emotive language propagated by those who are opposed to ani-
mal agriculture and wish, for example, for “pigs to express their pigginess.” Such groups neglect
to acknowledge the role of animal agriculture in providing high-quality protein to the growing
population, and fail to acknowledge animals’ contributions to human life in terms of clothing,
land maintenance and diversity, by-products for industrial manufacture, etc. When directed at the
dairy industry, emotive language serves to further promote the popular consumer perception that
the small-scale production systems present in the 1940s and 1950s had considerably higher wel-
fare standards than current production systems. This is an entirely disingenuous suggestion—few
people would suggest that standards of human welfare (health, nutrition, behavior) were signifi-
cantly better in the 1940s, where the average life expectancy was 62.9 years (compared to 77.8 for
2005; National Center for Health Statistics, 2006). The U.S. industrial revolution demonstrated
the short-term improvements in productivity gained by running factories for 24 hours per day.
However, this short-term increase in productivity was at a considerable cost to human welfare—
poorly ventilated, cramped working conditions without adequate time allowances for breaks or
meals and no health care provision led to increased disease, reduced morale, and a long-term pro-
ductivity decline (Brezina, 2005). To take this example further, factories still run on a 24-hour
cycle in many industries; however, with considerably improved working conditions, scheduled
breaks and vacation, and provision of health care and benefits, productivity has improved con-
siderably. It has become clear that maximum short- and long-term productivity is gained through
improving worker health and welfare, allowing the human components of the system to perform
at the optimum level. The same approach may be applied to animal production—turning the
Animal Welfare 155

“high productivity = high welfare” suggestion on its head, one can suggest that “high welfare =
high productivity.” There is no doubt that early innovations demonstrated to improve dairy pro-
ductivity had undesirable consequences when taken to extremes. However, improved knowledge
and understanding of dairy cow nutrition and metabolism has led to a system, which allows for
improved animal welfare and productivity when applied appropriately.
The bucolic image of small-scale, extensive dairy systems often leads to the characterization
of modern large-scale agriculture as “factory farms,” thereby implying that these systems have an
extremely low level of concern for animal welfare. Nonetheless, examination of the characteristics
of mid-1940s dairy farms shows that the agrarian idyll may not be an appropriate image. Dairy
production in 1944 was characterized by extensive pasture-based systems with an average herd size
of approximately six cows (Capper, Cady, and Bauman, 2009). Dairy cow nutrition was reliant on
homegrown forages with few purchased concentrate feeds (Woodward, 1939) and with only a basic
understanding of the nutritional and metabolic interactions between animal nutrition and produc-
tivity. Perhaps the most striking aspect of this so-called high animal welfare system was the low
productivity—the average dairy cow in 1944 yielded only 2074 kg/year. Since this time, the milk
yield per cow has increased at an average of 136 kg/year, of which half to two-thirds of the increase
has been attributed to improved genetics (Shook, 2006). However, the remaining component can be
attributed to improved understanding of nutrition, management, and welfare, thus allowing the mod-
ern dairy cow to produce more than 9333 kg of milk per year (USDA/NASS, 2010). Nonetheless,
efficiency within modern production systems is sometimes perceived by the consumer as being
undesirable or to occur at the expense of optimum animal welfare and well-being.
The sustainability of any dairy system depends upon balancing economic and environmental
sustainability while maintaining the social license to operate. Average dairy product consump-
tion has steadily risen over the past 20 years, with a decline in fluid milk consumption more than
compensated for by an increase in consumption of cheese and other dairy products. Although milk
is still considered a staple food, competition from other beverages and concern over the portrayal
of dairy management practices by media and activist groups may threaten social license, particu-
larly when animal welfare is the issue under discussion. This is exacerbated by anthropomorphic
views of animal welfare and the perception that the modern dairy cow has been “removed” from
its natural environment. In contrast to the dairy population in the 1940s, which comprised a mix-
ture of small (Jersey, Guernsey) and large breeds (Holstein, Ayrshire, Shorthorn), the modern U.S.
dairy population is distinctly more homogenous, containing over 90% Holsteins, approximately 5%
Jerseys, and 5% other breeds (Majeskie, 1993). The modern dairy cow may therefore be considered
to be a human creation—selection pressure augmented by the introduction of technologies includ-
ing artificial insemination, embryo transfer, genetic evaluation, and genome mapping has allowed
for animals that have significantly higher milk yields, yet these come with their own management
challenges that must be met for productivity and animal welfare to be optimized. It appears that
selection for high milk production may confer a higher susceptibility to stress and therefore a greater
risk of behavioral, physiological, and immune problems (Rauw et al., 1998) than demonstrated by
lower producing cows. It should be noted that milk production per se does not confer an increase
in cortisol or stress-related behaviors—it is the very absence of stress that allows dairy cattle to
perform to their genetic potential for lactation. Improvements in management practices that result
in a system more conducive to dairy cow welfare therefore have demonstrable effects upon perfor-
mance. Major contributors to animal welfare and productivity include the physical environment,
disease prevention and treatment, and nutrition, all of which should be considered both as singular
effects and as interacting factors.

Physical Environment
To maximize productivity and animal welfare, dairy management systems should be founded upon
the behavioral routines of the animal. This does not necessarily extend to a situation where animals
are allowed to forage on pastureland and to run in traditional herds containing both female and
156 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

male animals, without human intervention, as might be suggested by some of the more extreme
anti-animal agriculture groups. Nonetheless, the behavioral needs and routines of the cow must be
considered when designing a dairy system that is effective in optimizing animal welfare. According
to Grant and Albright (2001), dairy cows spend 3 to 5 h/d eating, thus consuming 9 to 14 meals per
day. In addition, they ruminate for 7 to 10 h/d, spend approximately 30 min/d drinking, and require
approximately 10 h/d of lying or resting time. This only leaves a minor period free for daily manage-
ment practices including milking. Compromising the cow’s ability to perform these activities has
negative effects on productivity and may increase stress levels.
Groups of dairy cattle quickly establish a dominance hierarchy, which is maintained according to
age, body weight, and social status within the population (Friend and Polan, 1974). Research dem-
onstrates that when maintained in groups containing greater than 100 animals, dairy cattle may lose
the ability to recognize individuals and assess their relative position within the hierarchy (Albright,
1978). This would appear to favor small-scale dairy production systems; however, it can easily be
achieved within larger dairies, which, for ease of management, group cows according to stage of
lactation or parity. However, significant stress behaviors are often exhibited as a result of moving
animals between established groups, for example, from a “far-off” (60 to 30 days pre-partum) to
a “close-up” (30 days pre-partum to parturition) dry cow group. Abnormal feeding behaviors and
an increased incidence of metabolic disorders have been exhibited by cows subjected to abrupt
environmental or social changes during the peri-parturient period (Bazeley and Pinsent, 1984) with
consequent effects on productivity. This may be alleviated by moving large numbers of cows at a
time, in order to minimize individual animal stress from handling and to reduce social disruption
(Grant and Albright, 2001) but this practice is again better suited to a large facility.
Grant and Albright (2001) note that optimal grouping strategies minimize negative social inter-
actions and encourage positive interactions, with an overall aim of maximizing cow comfort and
productivity. Fighting within the group is an obvious stressor and may reduce productivity—al-
though conflict is thought to be reduced by the maintenance of a stable dominance hierarchy, it is
not eliminated and can only be minimized. Competition for feed is an inevitable consequence of
modern dairy production systems unless animals are confined to tie-stalls (which are associated
with a different group of welfare issues). For example, the increase in dry matter intake during the
first few weeks of lactation occurs at a faster rate in older cows than in heifers (Kertz, Reutzel, and
Thomas, 1991) and may lead to negative interactions at the feed bunk. This provides a rationale for
grouping cows according to parity during early lactation. Fox (1983) suggests that the welfare of
cows within small- and medium-scale production systems is higher than in other farm animal spe-
cies. However, it is interesting to note that grouping cows is more suited to a medium- or large-scale
dairy than a small-scale dairy, despite their generally negative image with consumers.
Anecdotal evidence from the U.S. dairy industry suggests that when herd sizes were reduced in
California in an attempt to decrease milk supply, milk production per facility increased because
of improved dry matter intake (DMI) and extra feeding space per cow. Despite the potential for
hierarchal conflicts within large groups, it appears that these may be mediated though the provision
of adequate feeding space and supplies of fresh feed (Grant and Albright, 2001). The ideal group
size is difficult to define, but is a function of competition for feed and water, space in the lot and
holding area, stall use, and time diverted from productive behaviors (eating, drinking, resting, and
ruminating).
Over time, greater knowledge of cow behavioral requirements has led to the understanding that
provision of comfortable stalls has a direct effect upon productivity. Tremendous evolution has
occurred from original wooden stalls that did not allow adequate forward or side space for animals
to lunge forward in a natural manner but facilitated free movement within the pen, to modern free-
stalls with sand bedding and ample space to extend their front legs and lunge forward or sideways,
while still allowing for natural herd behavior within the pen. Poorly designed stalls that are too short
or that have inadequate bedding material reduce occupancy of free-stalls, thus reducing the propor-
tion of time spent lying or resting and increasing the chance of injury and lameness.
Animal Welfare 157

The debate as to whether cattle should be confined, grazed on pasture, or kept within a system
that makes use of both practices continues to rage. Critics of confinement systems claim that they
stifle natural behaviors, yet given the increase in human population size that is predicted to occur
within the next 40 years, the intensity of competition for land use is likely to increase. Assuming
that dairy consumption per capita stays stable, an industry-scale move to grazing systems is not a
feasible alternative simply based upon the lower productivity in grazing herds (USDA, 2007) and
thus the increase in land requirements per unit of milk (Capper et al., 2008). Grazing systems are
often perceived to be more welfare-friendly than are confinement systems; nonetheless, the welfare
issues associated with grazing may have different symptoms, but are equally detrimental to dairy
productivity and well-being. There is little evidence that cows within these grazing systems have
higher overall welfare than animals in a well-managed confinement system, especially given the
relative lack of control over environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, and ventilation.
Indeed, over time, conventional dairy systems have progressed from extensive pasture-based sys-
tems, through completely enclosed tie-stall and stanchion barns to modern open side-walled barns
with ventilation fans or cross-ventilated barns, which create an environment that allows animals to
remain within their thermo-neutral zone without expending excess energy on heat generation or dis-
persion. Where a market or sufficient resources are present to allow for grazing systems to prosper,
it is essential to match the animal characteristics to the system. This is exemplified by the results
observed when U.S. Holstein genetics were imported into New Zealand: Initially milk production
was increased compared to the New Zealand Holstein, but the grass-based system is nutritionally
insufficient to support high milk production and leads to lower survival rates as cows fail to cycle
or become pregnant and are culled as a result of the demands of the seasonal antipodean calving
system (Lucy, 2001).
Arguably, one of the most significant advances in both dairy and beef cattle has been the devel-
opment of handling systems that minimize stress and maximize productivity. Researchers such
as Dr. Temple Grandin at Colorado State University have designed and implemented movement
systems that allow the animal’s natural flight zone to be manipulated to facilitate handling with
reduced animal stress and thus greater ease and efficiency of management (Grandin, 2007). Cattle
that have a positive relationship with their handlers tend to move more smoothly, are less nervous
within the milking parlor or handling systems, and acclimatize more easily to changes in routine,
for example, when moving groups or during initial introduction to the milking process. Fox (1983)
states that maximum biological efficiency is achieved through a close human–cow bond, lack of
fear, zero flight distance, and selection for docility; nonetheless, these characteristics do not com-
pensate for low genetic merit for milk yield or poor management within the herd.

Disease Prevention and Treatment

The introduction of antibiotics for animal use was a major step forward in improving dairy welfare
and productivity. Modern animal production is often criticized for the extent to which antibiotics
are used, with ongoing debate as to whether antibiotic use within agriculture has contributed to the
rise of antibiotic resistance and related human health issues. Given that one of the cornerstones of
animal welfare according to the “five freedoms” first originated by Brambell (1965) is the ability
to be “free from pain, injury, and disease,” promotion of a dairy system whereby antibiotic use is
prohibited seems counter to the suggestion that animal welfare and productivity should be maxi-
mized. If it is accepted that animal welfare is paramount within production systems, the increasing
popularity of extensive or low-input systems that make marketing claims based upon non-use of
therapeutic antibiotics should be questioned. Groups opposed to animal agriculture often suggest
that modern-day conventional dairy producers are motivated simply by profit, with little regard for
animal welfare or well-being (Sustainable Table, 2009). However, this suggestion is inappropriate
as productivity is negatively affected by suboptimal animal welfare or increased morbidity and
mortality. Any management practice or system that negatively affects morbidity or mortality rates
is neither economically viable nor practicable.
158 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Within any system analysis, it is vital to consider the scientific basis behind the livestock pro-
duction practices rather than allowing decisions to be made based on emotional or philosophic
arguments (Pretty, 2007). This is exemplified by animal welfare legislation that is coming into play
across the United States and the rest of the world. For example, restricting the use of individual
housing for calves after eight weeks of age in Europe facilitates social interactions and allows the
development of natural herd behaviors (von Keyserlingk et al., 2009), but also increases the potential
for disease transmission through direct contact, with a concomitant risk of increased morbidity and
mortality. The conflict between public perception, scientific evidence, and traditional production
methods is perhaps best exemplified by the current discussion relating to tail docking in dairy cattle.
Proponents of tail docking suggest that it promotes cleanliness within the herd, reduces tail-related
injuries (predominantly eye infections) in workers, and reduces the incidence of mastitis. There is
little scientific evidence to support these claims either from an animal or human welfare perspec-
tive and as the practice is not supported by the major animal welfare or wellness organizations, nor
the general public as a whole, it appears that it may soon be legislated against. It is impossible to
justify production practices for which no scientific data exist to demonstrate either a lack of negative
effects or an improvement in welfare—this underlines the importance of devoting further resources
to welfare issues in future research protocols.
Dr. Temple Grandin, a pioneer in the field of animal behavior and movement, often refers to the
concept of “bad becoming normal,” which may be defined as a situation that is detrimental, yet is
seen so often that it becomes commonplace (Grandin and Johnson, 2006). Dr. Grandin applies this
principle to the relatively high incidence of lameness within the dairy industry—an issue that is
cited by consumers as a particular welfare issue. There is some debate as to whether an increased
incidence of lameness is an inevitable consequence of industrialization within the dairy industry:
Certainly lameness reduces productivity (Green et al., 2002) and is undesirable both from an eco-
nomic and welfare perspective. However, milk yield itself has not been shown to be a contributing
factor (Haskell et al., 2006). In addition, there was no association between herd size and lame-
ness incidence in the study of Espejo and Endres (2007), although the authors noted that studies
in England had found differing results. The frequency of hoof-trimming, time spent away from
the pen (without access to stalls, food, or water), and cow-comfort quotient were reported to have
significant effects upon lameness (Espejo and Endres, 2007). Matching stall size and design to
cow size and weight was also cited as a major factor in lameness incidence by both Haskell et
al. (2006) and Espejo and Endres (2007). This is often seen in older facilities where average cow
size has increased over time, without a corresponding increase in stall size or change in design. It
is somewhat comforting to know that these management factors can be controlled or changed in
most farm situations; therefore, significant potential exists to reduce lameness and improve overall
animal welfare, provided that the producer has sufficient incentive to do so. The increasing number
of certification schemes that include animal welfare as a major component and provide a market
advantage may achieve this.
Mastitis is arguably one of the most significant issues within the dairy industry, with potential
production losses of 135 kg milk in the first lactation or 270 kg milk in the second lactation per
unit increase in average log somatic cell count (Raubertas and Shook, 1982). Mastitis’s nature as
an inflammatory condition causing pain and loss of production is by definition a welfare issue. The
severity of this issue is highlighted by the fact that producers report 16.5% of animals suffering
from the condition, and udder or mastitis problems rank second in the list of producer-reported rea-
sons for culling (USDA, 2007). There appears to be an association between milk yield and mastitis
incidence (Phipps, 1989), yet there is some discussion as to whether this is a direct cause-effect rela-
tionship, for which there seems to be little biological foundation, or whether it results from greater
time spent in the milking parlor with associated potential for infectious transfer, as a consequence
of increased yield. For example, the biotechnological tool recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)
increases milk yield by approximately 4.5 kg/d if sufficient feed is supplied to support milk yield
(Capper et al., 2008). The FDA-approved label for rbST includes a warning that cows injected
Animal Welfare 159

with the product are at an increased risk for mastitis, which groups opposed to biotechnology have
taken as evidence that rbST use causes mastitis. However, a 1300-cow study undertaken by Poulet
(1982) demonstrated no correlation between the relative incidence of mastitis and the use of rbST.
As demonstrated by the U.S. dairy industry over the past century, greater intensification, including
an increase in herd size, is an inevitable consequence of the need to produce more milk to feed the
increasing population using fewer animals and non-renewable resources. However, mastitis inci-
dence is not linked to herd size (USDA, 2007) and its control is dependent upon the implementa-
tion of best management practices including milking parlor hygiene, use of teat disinfectants, and
clean bedding materials. It is worth noting that there are few studies relating to mastitis incidence
in organic herds in which antibiotic use is not permitted (Hamilton et al., 2006; Ruegg, 2009).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that many large organic herds also maintain a conventional herd into
which animals may be moved if antibiotic treatment becomes necessary, or these animals may sim-
ply be sold. Given that milk yields in organic dairy herds are generally 20 to 40% lower (Zwald et
al., 2004; Rotz et al., 2007) than those of conventional herds, any demonstrable reduction in mastitis
may simply result from lower productivity. It appears that there is little to be gained from adopting
management practices characteristic of organic or extensive production in preventing and control-
ling mastitis, but implementing best management practices as exhibited by the most productive and
efficient farms currently within the industry paves the pathway to improving animal welfare.
Increases in milk production over the past 30 years have been associated with a reduction in
fertility (Lucy, 2002). It is debatable as to whether this is an animal welfare issue per se. Reduced
fertility may be taken as an indicator of underlying health issues, but it may also be argued that
achieving pregnancy after milk production peaks and the cow is able to attain a positive energy
balance is more desirable for the animal and is more likely to result in a successful pregnancy.
Drying-off high-yielding cows that continue to yield 30 or 35 kg of milk per day at 365 days into
lactation is undesirable and may lead to problems in the subsequent lactation (Church et al., 2008).
Nonetheless, infertility is a major reason for culling with a producer-reported 26.3% of animals
being removed from the herd due to reproductive problems (USDA, 2007). A recent report from the
Farm Animal Welfare Council (2009) suggested that the average lifespan of 3.3 lactations for U.K.-
based cows is an indicator of suboptimal welfare given that cattle can live to 12 years or older. If we
set aside the previously discussed effects of genetic merit upon productivity and the market forces in
place that favor replacing older cattle with heifers within the current dairy herd, improving fertility
would be expected to have positive effects upon lifespan and welfare. It should be noted that dairy
cow fertility is not an objective measure—pregnancy rate (defined as the proportions of cows that
become pregnant divided by the total number of cows eligible to become pregnant within a specific
time frame) is significantly affected by the ability of herders to detect heat. Indeed, Coleman (1993)
reported that 90% of low estrus detection rates could be attributed to herders versus 10% to the
cow herself. This does not necessarily account for the increase in non-behavioral estrus (“silent”
heats) exhibited by high-producing animals under thermal or other stresses (Her et al., 1988), but
demonstrates the value of heat detection methods such as tail chalking in improving fertility. The
current average U.S. pregnancy rate ranges from 16% to 20%. Nonetheless, the author is personally
aware of more than one U.S. dairy herd averaging over 41 kg of milk per day with a pregnancy rate
of 29%—an example of a production facility whose management practices should be emulated both
now and in future.
The relatively high incidence of culling within the U.S. dairy herd is often cited as evidence of
poor animal welfare compared to less intensive systems. Holstein cows spend an average of 2.54
lactations within the herd (DairyMetrics™ database, Dairy Records Management Systems, Raleigh,
NC; accessed November 13, 2009) before being sold or diverted to the beef market (culling). Just as
any dairy production system has to function as a fiscally efficient business to be economically sus-
tainable, it can be argued that the concept of “involuntary culling,” that is, culling that is not under
the producer’s control, can be restricted to only two occasions—animal death or theft. Other inci-
dences of culling due to low yields, poor fertility, or disease are an economic decision—if the cost
160 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

invested in rectifying the issue or the return gained by keeping the animal in the herd outweighs the
cost of replacing the animal with a freshly calved heifer, and providing such a heifer is available,
it is inherently logical to replace the cow. It should be noted that the movement of cows from the
dairy herd to the beef supply should not be considered “wastage”—approximately 7% of animals
slaughtered for beef production in 2009 originated from the dairy herd, allowing sufficient beef to
be produced without having to increase the size of the national beef herd. Although the majority of
dairy bulls are diverted into beef and veal production systems, dairy heifers comprise only 1.4% of
animals within beef feedlots (USDA, 2000), reflecting their relative value as dairy versus beef ani-
mals. On an idealistic basis, it is tempting to suggest that cattle would perform to their genetic merit
and only leave the herd when they have completed their natural lifespan; however, this situation
may not be best-placed to fulfill the needs and constraints of the modern dairy industry, especially
given that a cow necessitates the production of a calf in order to lactate, and approximately half of
the calves born are heifers. Discussion is occurring as to the potential effects of increasing sexed
semen use within the dairy industry—it is possible that the future U.S. dairy industry will only use
female-sexed semen upon the highest genetic merit cows, with the remainder being bred to a beef
bull, or inseminated with male-bearing sperm.

Nutrition
Nutrition is the foundation upon which dairy cow productivity and welfare is built. Multifaceted
links exist between the three pillars of animal welfare, yet without an adequate high-quality feed
provision to supply the nutrients required to support maintenance, lactation, pregnancy over the
long-term, productivity, efficiency, and health and welfare suffer. As previously discussed, adop-
tion of the credo that high productivity goes hand-in-hand with optimal animal welfare carries
the inherent assumption that nutritional strategies that encourage high production also ensure that
animal welfare is maintained. Provision of sufficient time and physical space for feeding behavior
to occur is a key to maintaining productivity—Grant and Albright (2001) suggest that feeding is
the predominant behavior in dairy cattle until requirements are satisfied, with rumination taking
precedence only when its feed has been abnormally restricted. From a physiological aspect, distur-
bances in rumen function or nutrient digestion lead to reduced productivity; for example, the early
discovery that supplementing ruminants with highly fermentable grain (e.g., corn) also led to a
considerable increase in mortality until correct feeding levels were established. Once these were in
place, the next issue to become known was the fluctuations in ruminal pH and subsequent acidosis
conferred by feeding forage separately from concentrate feeds. Over time, the adoption of total
mixed rations (TMRs) within conventional dairy production has increased from 35.6% in 1996 to
51.5% in 2007, with 70.1% of herds with a rolling herd average of over 9072 kg/y (slightly below
the average annual milk yield for the United States in 2007) feeding a TMR. Feeding a diet that
is balanced to maintain energy and protein supply and that reduces adverse changes in ruminal or
intestinal digestion has demonstrably improved digestibility, productivity, and welfare. These are
only two brief examples of the interaction between nutrition, health, and physical environment, but
there are many more. An in-depth discussion of the effects of inadequate or inappropriate nutrition
upon welfare is beyond the scope of this review, yet the subject should be considered in any welfare
discussion.

CONClUsiON
Animal welfare, productivity, and efficiency are keys to the continued sustainability of the dairy
industry. Rather than focusing on individual practices from conventional or alternative production
systems, best progress can be made by highlighting the management principles that maximize all
three components of animal welfare, thus indicating that productivity and welfare are intrinsically
linked. Within the current industry, this means examining the systems employed by the top 20% of
producers, shifting the bell-shaped curve from the current average to a better average, and gaining
Animal Welfare 161

momentum for future change in the process. Early adopters of innovation within any industry make
the fastest progress, with the difference between early and late adopters being demonstrated by
product quality—in this case milk production and indicators of animal welfare. Ideally, proactive
adoption of best management practices will improve productivity and welfare—if adoption is so low
that regulation or legislation is required to bring the lowest performers up to average performance, it
should be questioned as to whether those producers will remain competitive within an industry that
is increasingly reliant on social license to operate. Ultimately, one of the biggest threats the dairy
industry faces concerning animal welfare is the presence of producers who fail to value the inter-
action between animal welfare and productivity and who are inevitably the subject of exposés by
anti-animal agriculture groups. The importance of animal welfare and productivity in maintaining
the socioeconomic sustainability of the dairy industry cannot and should not be underestimated.

REFERENCEs
Albright, J.L. 1978. Social considerations in grouping cows. In: Large Dairy Herd Management. C.J. Wilcox
and H.H. Van Horn, Eds. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Bazely, K., and P.J.N. Pinset. 1984. Preliminary observations in a series of outbreaks of acute laminitis in dairy
cattle. Veterinary Record 115: 619–622.
Brambell, F.W.R. 1965. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under
Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. London, UK: HMSO.
Brezina, C. 2005. The Industrial Revolution in America: A Primary Source History of America’s Transformation
into an Industrial Society. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Capper, J.L., E. Castañeda-Gutiérrez, R.A. Cady, and D.E. Bauman. 2008. The environmental impact of recom-
binant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA 105: 9668–9673.
Capper, J.L., R.A. Cady, and D.E. Bauman. 2009. The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 com-
pared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 87: 2160–2167.
Church, G.T., L.K. Fox, C.T. Gaskins, D.D. Hancock, and J.M. Gay. 2008. The effect of a shortened dry
period on intramammary infections during the subsequent lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 91:
4219–4225.
Coleman, D.A. 1993. Detecting estrus in dairy cattle. USA National Dairy Database, Reproduction Collection,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Text is now only available on a CD rom from the University
of Maryland.
Espejo, L.A., and M.I. Endres. 2007. Herd-level risk factors for lameness in high-producing Holstein cows
housed in freestall barns. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 306–314.
Farm Animal Welfare Council. 2009. Opinion of the Welfare of the Dairy Cow. London, UK: Farm Animal
Welfare Council.
Fox, M.W. 1983. Animal welfare and the dairy industry. Journal of Dairy Science 66: 2221.
Fraser, D., D.M. Weary, E.A. Pajor, and B.N. Milligan. 1997. A scientific conception of animal welfare that
reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205.
Friend, T.H., and C.E. Polan. 1974. Social rank, feeding behavior, and free stall utilization by dairy cattle.
Journal of Dairy Science 57: 1214–1222.
Grandin, T. 2007. Livestock Handling and Transport. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Grandin, T., and C. Johnson. 2006. Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal
Behavior. New York: Mariner Books.
Grant, R.J., and J.L. Albright. 2001. Effect of animal grouping on feeding behavior and intake of dairy cattle.
Journal of Dairy Science (E. Suppl.): E156–163.
Green, L.E., V.J. Hodges, Y.H. Schukken, R.W. Blowey, and A.J. Packington. 2002. The impact of clinical
lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 2250–2256.
Hamilton, C., U. Emanuelson, K. Forslund, I. Hansson, and T. Elkman. 2006. Mastitis and related management
factors in certified organic dairy herds in Sweden. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 48: 11.
Haskell, M.J., L.J. Rennie, V.A. Bowell, M.J. Bell, and A.B. Lawrence. 2006. Housing system, milk production, and
zero-grazing effects on lameness and leg injury in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 4259–4266.
Her, E., D. Wolfenson, I. Flamenbaum, Y. Folman, M. Kaim, and A. Berman. 1988. Thermal, productive, and
reproductive responses of high yielding cows exposed to short-term cooling in summer. Journal of Dairy
Science 71: 1085–1092.
162 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Kertz, A.F., L.F. Reutzel, and G.R. Thomas. 1991. Dry matter intake from parturition to midlactation. Journal
of Dairy Science 74: 2290–2295.
Lucy, M. 2001. Reproductive physiology and management of high-yielding dairy cattle. In: Proceedings of the
61st Conference of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Lucy, M. 2002. The future of dairy reproductive management. Advances in Dairy Technology 14: 161–173.
Majeskie, L.J. 1993. Status of United States Dairy Cattle. Dairy Herd Improvement Collection. University of
Maryland, College Park, MD.
National Center for Health Statistics. 2006. National Vital Statistics Reports. 54: 19. June 28, 2006. http://www.
cdc.gov/nchs
Phipps, R.H. 1989. A review of the influence of somatotropin on health, reproduction and welfare in lactat-
ing dairy cows. In: Use of Somatotropin in Livestock Production. K. Sejrsen, M. Vestergaard, and A.
Neimann-Sorensen, Eds. New York: Elsevier.
Poutrel, B. 1982. Susceptibility to mastitis: A review of factors related to the cow. Annals of Veterinary Research
13: 85.
Pretty, J. 2007. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B 363: 447–465.
Raubertas, R.F., and G.E. Shook. 1982. Relationship between lactation measures of somatic cell concentration
and milk yield. Journal of Dairy Science 65: 419–425.
Rauw, W.M., E. Kanis, E.N. Noordhuizen-Stassen, and F.J. Grommers. 1998. Undesirable side effects of
selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: A review. Livestock Production Science 56:
15–33.
Rotz, C.A., G.H. Kamphuis, H.D. Karsten, and R.D. Weaver. 2007. Organic dairy production systems in
Pennsylvania: A case study evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3961–3979.
Ruegg, P.L. 2009. Management of mastitis on organic and conventional dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science
87: 43–55.
Shook, G.E. 2006. Major advances in determining appropriate selection goals. Journal of Dairy Science 89:
1349–1361.
Sustainable Table. 2009. http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/dairy/ (accessed 09/09/2011).
USDA. 2000. Part I: Baseline Reference of Feedlot Management Practices, 1999. Fort Collins, CO: USDA.
USDA. 2007. Dairy 2007 Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the United
States, 2007. Washington, DC: USDA.
USDA/NASS. 2010. Statistics by Subject. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/index.php (Accessed
November 2010).
von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., J. Rushen, A.M. de Passille, and D.M. Weary. 2009. The welfare of dairy cattle —
Key concepts and the role of science. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 4101–4111.
Woodward, T.E. 1939. Figuring the rations of dairy cows. In: Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, DC: USDA,
p. 592.
Zwald, A.G., P.L. Ruegg, J.B. Kaneene, L.D. Warnick, S.J. Wells, C. Fossler, and L.W. Halbert. 2004.
Management practices and reported antimicrobial usage on conventional and organic dairy farms.
Journal of Dairy Science 87: 191–201.

POULTRY
Kenneth Anderson
POUlTRY AND POUlTRY PRODUCTiON SYsTEms
Over the last 100 years, the poultry industry has developed into three highly efficient systems
made up of the commercial egg, broiler, and turkey segments. Back in the early 1900s when small
self-sustaining farms were everywhere in the United States, free-range chickens for eggs as well
as meat were a standard commodity on most every farm (Dryden, 1918). By the 1930s, free range
was the main form of egg production being utilized, but farmers needed a more economical way to
produce eggs year round for market and to get away from diseases caused by having the chickens
on the floor. Thus, a battery system of caging chickens began to be developed in the early 1950s
(Jull, 1951). Cages resulted in farmers being able to decrease the cost of production and increase
the bird-to-space ratio, which made egg and meat production more profitable. Battery systems
Animal Welfare 163

for eggs and litter systems for meat have been the standard now for decades, but entering into the
twenty-first century there is a huge push from animal rights activists as well as a segment of the
consumer market to get birds out of cages, back on the floor, and provide outdoor access. It is ironic
how the industry is making a huge circle right back to where it all began. Today, hens on many of
the poultry farms produce 489 eggs in 110 weeks (Anderson, 2007), 6.4-lb broilers in 42 days with
1.58 lb of feed per pound of gain (Havenstein, Ferket, and Qureshi, 2003), and 50-lb turkey males
in 22 weeks with a feed conversion of 2.7 lb of feed per pound of gain (Krueger, 2008). These
performance numbers were undreamed of 60 years ago, and even 20 years ago, layers were only
producing 380 eggs in 110 weeks (Anderson, 1991). These advances in performance are the result
of genetic selection, better understanding of disease and vaccines, nutrition, and environmental
management. Within each of these sectors, there are subsectors made up of the breeders, hatcher-
ies, broiler growers, egg production, transport, and processing. Currently, broilers and turkeys are
predominantly reared on litter floor operations where the birds are contained in a large building
with deep litter. Commercial layers are predominantly housed in some type of cage environment,
with approximately 80% of the U.S. laying flock housed in cages, 10% housed in environmentally
enriched production environments, and approximately 9% in a cage-free range system. Because
of the extensive use of cages, the layer industry has been a primary target of organizations to end
the use of battery cages in the United States. This criticism and activism is coming primarily
from external coalitions of animal rights organizations, environmentalists, vegetarians, individu-
als within the animal research community, and the consumer (Anderson, 2009c). As a result, state
ballot initiatives and state agreements targeting the layer industry have emerged, resulting in the
affected industries rapidly changing to meet the imposed requirements. The organizations sponsor-
ing these initiatives have become very astute at manipulating the public perception and influencing
regulations.
The poultry industry is being criticized from all sides for its management of facilities, hus-
bandry practices, disease prevention, and environmental management. There are a number of prac-
tices within the poultry industry that can be misconstrued as deleterious to the welfare of animals.
However, these practices have been researched and are constantly being examined by the industry
for their benefit to welfare and quality of the product produced. In a number of instances, practices
have been abandoned in commercial operations because of their potential negative impact on the
bird and lack of benefit to the commercial producer or product quality. Part of this may be a result
of the efforts of poultry breeders to select for behavior traits that benefit the birds in a more inten-
sive setting (Craig and Muir, 1996). Issues in the poultry industry that have been noted as affecting
animal well-being are discussed in the following sections.

HATCHERY
The handling of newly hatched chicks, poults, or ducklings has been associated with a number of
animal welfare concerns regarding hatcheries and the movement of hatchlings through the hatchery
system (Agriculture Canada, 1989). Growing concerns are focused on the way the neonatal chick or
poult is handled once it is removed from the incubator. The keys to humane handling of these young
animals are related to gentle handling of chicks from the hatching tray, separating them from hatch
residue and piped embryos, and ensuring that they are not dropped from high places. Chicks expe-
rience short drops of a few inches during processing and have no changes in their livability in the
growing house. Hatchery processes begin with the chicks, broken shells, and unhatched embryos in
the hatching trays being gently tipped onto the chick and eggshell separator, which allows the chicks
to fall through the rollers onto a rod conveyor. This separates the chicks from the large shell compo-
nents and the small shell particles. The chicks then slide into a chick-go-round. From this carousel,
the chicks can easily be handled for sorting, sexing, and vaccinating (Bell and Weaver, 2002). The
chicks are then placed in chick boxes for transport to the rearing facilities.
164 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Cull or non-salable hatchlings that do not enter production such as males (layers) and chicks
with defects or injuries are humanely euthanized immediately after hatch. Three methods are used
for euthanasia in hatcheries. They include immediate mechanical destruction (maceration), vacuum
with impact plate, and modified atmospheric gas (asphyxiation). The Humane Slaughter Association
(2002) recommended the use of two methods: maceration and modified atmosphere gas euthanasia
(Raj and Whittington, 1995). The key to each of these methods is the immediate death of the chick
with no excessive pain or struggling. All of these methods of euthanasia are acceptable if they are
done according to standard operating procedure and the equipment is maintained and functioning
properly. The result of this process should be evaluated rigorously because the animal welfare con-
cerns are very high. The same can be said for methods for the disposal of unhatched embryos. Live
pips and the embryos that have not hatched are now treated in the same manner as cull chicks. As
such, they should be disposed of in a similar manner with constant checking of the results to ensure
that no live embryos survive. Two additional methods, rapid cooling and freezing, are also accept-
able means of euthanizing unhatched embryos. Most hatcheries utilize some form of maceration
as their primary euthanasia method, which results in immediate death (Beckman, 2010). In other
circumstances or in an emergency, euthanasia may be accomplished using CO2 for large groups and,
for individual chicks, cervical dislocation can be used by properly trained individuals.

BEAK TRimmiNG, DUbbiNG/DE-sNOODiNG, AND TOE TRimmiNG

These are morphological alterations in a number of different ways, including elective surgery, ampu-
tations, or mutilations. These descriptors vary depending upon who is describing them. If these
procedures are utilized, one must ensure that the equipment used to carry out these procedures is
working properly, and that the personnel involved in carrying out these procedures are adequately
trained. If these procedures are not needed, they should be eliminated from chick processing prac-
tices. Breeders are selecting for behavioral patterns that diminish the need for these practices (Craig
and Muir, 1996).
Beak trimming was developed to curtail the development of abnormal behaviors such as cannibal-
ism or excessive feather pecking. In these cases, the hen’s welfare was enhanced with beak trimming.
Beak trimming continues to be the method of choice worldwide for the control of cannibalism and
general improvements in performance and livability. When performed at the proper age using the hot
blade (HB), infrared (IR), or scalable continuous wave lasers (SL), there are few long-term negative
effects. There are advantages and disadvantages with each method. Some of the advantages of all
methods are reduced mortality (Craig and Lee, 1989, 1990), lower feed consumption, improved feed
efficiency (Lee, 1980), and improved egg production (Kuo, Craig, and Muir, 1991). Some disadvan-
tages associated with beak trimming of older birds or severe trimming are delayed sexual maturity
(Carey, 1990), potential neuroma formation, and chronic stress in the trimmed pullets. Indications are
that beak trimming likely results in pain to the bird due to the mechanoreceptor and thermoreceptor
cells present in the beak (Gentle and Breward, 1985; Gottschaldt et al., 1982). However, the length
of time that the pain may endure appears to be related to quality of the trim (Gentle, 1986a, 1986b),
trimming age, and severity of the trim (Davis, Anderson, and Jones, 2004). Davis showed that corti-
costerone levels in birds trimmed at 6 days returned to the same as non-trimmed flock mates within
24 h, while hens trimmed at 11 weeks of age had elevated corticosterone levels at 5 weeks after the
trim. Regardless of the methods, the negative aspects of beak trimming that may occur in the pullet
phase appear to be offset by the positive aspects in the layer phase with enhanced performance and
improved livability of the flock. These changes are in part due to changes in behavioral patterns,
which result from beak trimming (Craig and Lee, 1989) that includes increased feeding activity,
increased resting pattern, and a reduction in pecking by cage mates. The chickens adapt quickly to
the beak alteration and there does not seem to be a long-term negative effect on the birds.
Dubbing is a procedure to remove the comb from the head of the bird at hatch in an attempt to
limit later damage by injury, freezing, or cannibalism. Dubbing roosters and hens is a practice that
Animal Welfare 165

has not persisted in the layer industry due to increased climate control of the production houses
(Hester, 2005). Dubbing is still used for special cases that include research facilities where the
combs of roosters may become caught or injured due to caging for selective artificial insemination
practices; however, hens are no longer dubbed. The comb of breeding males in cages can become
so large they become a potential entrapment component or may restrict access to the feed trough.
Dubbing eliminates this impediment and, when done properly at hatching, results in a reduction in
comb size of 50 to 75%. This is only used in strains with large combs such as egg-type strains. The
second reason is to minimize the comb’s exposure to cold temperatures. Full-size combs have a
greater potential of freezing in cold climates and dubbed hens perform better than their non-dubbed
counterparts do in cold weather (Cole and Hutt, 1954). However, as the poultry industry is forced
to revert to extensive production systems in cooler climates, the use of dubbing may be revived to
help the birds cope with cold or freezing temperatures in the winter. In this case, the producers are
balancing one husbandry practice with another. Whether the practice is dubbing or housing chick-
ens in a confined space, each has welfare considerations, which will improve the overall welfare of
the bird in one instance, but may not improve welfare of birds in another. If necessary, dubbing is
best completed at hatching due to the lack of vascularization of the comb at that age (Cole and Hutt,
1954) although it can be done through 8 weeks of age with special care to prevent bleeding. The
comb is removed at its base using surgical scissors.
De-snooding is the removal of the snood (dewbill) to prevent head injuries from picking or fight-
ing in a growing flock (TNAU, 2010). The snood is removed at hatch by pinching the snood off
between the thumbnail and forefinger or using a small clipper. It can also be removed with scissors
at 3 weeks of age. As with many practices in poultry, this practice has alternative names and mean-
ings especially in the way they are presented to the public. One case in point is the Wales Statutory
Instruments 2007 No. 1029 (W.96) regulation entitled “The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures)
(Wales) Regulations 2007.” With this type of title, de-snooding would not be a very welcomed pro-
cedure even if the benefits to the bird were significant. However, recent research has shown that the
snood may enhance heat loss in males (Buchholz, 1996) and that, behaviorally, de-snooding does
not appear to result in overt aggression in the rearing environment. In support of discontinuing de-
snooding, growers have found that there is no advantage to the male turkey and that the snood may
help the turkey dissipate body heat. Therefore, in discussions with experts, it was concluded that
de-snooding be abandoned as unnecessary for the welfare of birds in the turkey industry.
Toe clipping is only used in the turkey industry for females grown for roasting and in the broiler
industry for male breeders to reduce the incidence of injuries to the other birds in the flock from
scratches to the back, breast, and legs. This practice was shown to diminish the nervousness of the
flock and to reduce body injury to flock mates from moving and fighting as the birds reach maturity
(McEwen and Barbut, 1992). However, advances in genetic selection, husbandry, and nutrition have
minimized the need to use this practice. Toe trimming is typically done at the hatchery using a hot
blade, infrared, or microwave (Honaker and Ruszler, 2004). Broiler breeder females are no longer
trimmed and the males typically only have the dewclaw removed (Bell and Weaver, 2002). Ouart,
Russell, and Wilson (1989) indicated that trimming of multiple toes might contribute to decreased
mating efficiency and fertility. When toe trimming is done in the hatcheries, the infrared method
is preferred to minimize pain and stress (Wang et al., 2008) associated with older methods. This
practice does reduce the incidence of injuries to other birds; however, the question of whether the
procedure results in long-term pain or discomfort to the animal has not been resolved. One report
indicated that removal of one toe in breeder chicks did not appear to cause chronic pain (Gentle and
Hunter, 1988). Esthetically the procedure is not pleasant to observe, but neither turkeys nor broilers
appear to suffer any long-term negative consequences.
Chick transport from the hatchery is another area of concern for animal welfare groups. Items
that need to be monitored include the cleanliness of the chick boxes and pads, handling of the chick
boxes, temperature of the transport truck, ventilation in the transport truck, exposure to exces-
sive stress and noise, and the duration of the delivery trip. If these components are monitored and
166 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

maintained, then both good chick quality and bird welfare are ensured. Mitchell and Kettlewell
(2004) indicated that a transport time of 12 h is acceptable if conditions such as temperature, humid-
ity, and ventilation within the transport vehicle are well controlled and monitored to ensure chick
well-being.

HUsbANDRY PRACTiCEs
Poultry housing issues have focused on space and housing for laying hens in cages and it is prob-
ably the most controversial issue facing the poultry industry today. It is by far the most pressing
issue in the commercial egg industry, but less pressing in other sectors of the poultry industry in
which birds are reared on the floor in litter facilities (Bell and Weaver, 2002; Hester 2005). Housing
density, the amount of space provided to the hens, is a combination of two factors—the amount
of floor space allocated to each bird and group size. In a cage-house setting, both of these fac-
tors can have a negative impact on production and behavior of the flock (Adams and Craig, 1985;
Anderson, 1996; Anderson, 2009b). As space per hen is diminished and as group size increases,
productivity declines and mortality increases. These impacts are present even when the population
is held constant with decreasing space and when the population is increased with a constant den-
sity (Anderson, 1996). However, is it correct to interpret this response as being due to diminished
well-being? Bogner et al. (1979) determined that Leghorns need between 458 and 581 cm2 in order
to accommodate behaviors of preening and comfort movements. Lagadic and Faure (1987) taught
hens that if they performed a task, pecked a specific button, a portion of the cage would move to
increase the determined floor space available. With this type of testing, they determined that hens
selected floor space of between 400 to 619 cm2. Currently, the egg industry is providing 432 cm2 (67
in.2) for white egg strains and 490 cm2 (76 in.2) for brown egg layers (United Egg Producers, 2010).
These amounts of floor space for the hen, as well as the physical structures within the environment,
promote the display of comfort movements from a more natural behavioral repertoire. There is a
transition within the egg industry toward housing birds in more extensive systems that include envi-
ronmentally enriched housing systems (Tauson, 2000), cage-free space or aviaries (Gibson et al.,
1989) and free-range facilities (Hughes and Dunn, 1986; Appleby and Hughes, 1991). Spaces within
these facilities range from 929 cm2 (1 ft2) for slat/litter houses and aviaries to 1393 cm2 (1.5 ft2) in
all litter and free-range operations (United Egg Producers, 2010; Anderson, 2009a). These systems
provide roosts, nest boxes, litter areas, and, in the case of free-range operations, the opportunity for
hens to access the outdoors (Anderson, 2009a). In these environments, adequate space for roost-
ing (13 to 15 cm per bird), nesting (1 nest per 5 to 8 hens), feeding (3.8 to 5.1 cm per bird and the
hen should not have to move more than 7.9 m), and watering (1 to 2.54 cm per hen depending on
device configuration or 1 nipple per 10 hens) are important. These extensive systems provide a more
enriched and stimulating environment that allows hens to exhibit a complete behavioral repertoire.
However, there are negative aspects associated with extensive systems such as sternum deformities,
bone fractures from falls, exposure to inclement weather, increased risk of disease and parasitism,
and increased risk of predation.
Broilers, broiler breeders, turkeys, and turkey breeders are housed in floor facilities that contain
litter areas, feeders, waterers, and nest boxes; therefore, these segments of the poultry industry have
not had the level of scrutiny focused on the layer segment of the poultry industry. However, as with
all commercial poultry operations, the primary concerns are related to the housing and maintenance
of such flocks. These concerns are associated with bird density and adequate space allocations for
the resources of feed and water.
Broiler breeder density allocations recommended for litter and slat/litter houses are 3 and 2 ft2 per
bird, respectively, and for commercial broilers the desired density is 0.8 to 1.0 ft2 per bird depending
on the final body weight desired (Bell and Weaver, 2002). Bird density, whether excessive or not,
can and will affect growth, feed conversion, and behavior of birds, which can negatively affect their
welfare. The undesirable behaviors in breeder flocks are cannibalism, excessive feather pecking,
Animal Welfare 167

and fear-related behaviors such as avoidance and escape responses or flock hysteria. Many of these
behaviors are readily observable by producers and, if noted, measures should be taken to rectify
them. Space at the feeder should be adequate for all birds in a pen to eat at once, as this is especially
important in breeder flocks. In skip-a-day feed restriction programs, this may be especially impor-
tant. If space is not adequate, there may be observable increases in aggressive behaviors. Inadequate
feeder space will not necessarily result in injury to the subordinate animals, but will influence the
subordinate bird’s ability to obtain adequate nutrition, and will result in non-uniform body weights
and poor productivity. In many instances, it may only be a single bird dominating a feeder. The
birds in a flock utilize water space differently and aggressive behaviors associated with water con-
sumption are not an issue in facilities with adequate space. As long as watering space does not limit
water consumption, watering space is not an area that needs to be controlled. Hens will typically
stand around a cup or nipple drinker and take turns drinking. Nesting space is important in breeder
operations and should provide 1 nest per 4 to 5 hens or 1 m of community nest per 35 to 40 hens.
If this space is inadequate, there will be an increased number of eggs laid on the floor. Inadequate
nesting space can also lead to increases in breakage and eating of eggs. The height of the nests from
the floor (>20 in.) is also thought to increase the potential for the development of hysteria. In floor
production systems, hens should be kept out of nests at night and early morning, and then the rests
should be opened for egg laying in the morning. This keeps the nests cleaner and allows free access
to the nests when eggs are being laid.
Feed and water restriction programs are used to control body weight in fast-growing, high-feed
consuming breeder birds and water restriction keeps them from over-drinking after the feed has
been consumed (Bell and Weaver, 2002). Such programs go hand in hand, one to restrict feed
intake, and the other to limit growth rate. Water restriction is also used to prevent birds from con-
suming excessive amounts of water in an attempt to satisfy their desire for more food. Water restric-
tion also helps maintain better litter conditions. Thus, monitoring of behavior with regard to feed
and water consumption can provide insight into the well-being of hens.
Commercial turkey breeder hens are maintained in facilities separate from the breeding toms.
Due to the size of the males, natural mating is no longer used, and lighting and feeding programs
are different for the two populations. The recommended space is 0.3 m2 per hen and 0.4 m2 per
tom. If the space is not adequate, feather picking, cannibalism, and other health problems can ensue
(Spratt, 1993).
Molting is used extensively in the layer industry to extend the productive life of laying hens (Bell
and Weaver, 2002; Anderson and Havenstein, 2007). It is also used in the broiler breeder, turkey
(Lilburn et al., 1993), and duck segments of the poultry industry to extend egg production (Rolon,
Buhr, and Cunningham, 1993; Hurwitz et al., 1995, 1998). The molting procedures result in the
initiation of a natural process in which the hen enters into a phase of reproductive quiescence that
allows her to replace her feather coat and replenish her body systems before entering into another
reproductive cycle. The stimulus for entering into this phase consists of environmental stimuli, such
as reducing lighting, temperature, and some level of anorexia. In the avian species, molt inducement
has been accomplished by limiting the nutrient intake of all or selected nutrients as a commercial
husbandry practice. The methods used to induce molt in laying hens are stressful and have been
condemned as inhumane husbandry practices. There are times when wild birds do not eat in spite of
having food readily available, for example, during molting, breeding, and egg incubation.
Stevens (1996) indicates the importance birds place upon seasonal breeding and other activities.
He indicated that fasting is especially pronounced in geese that may be anorexic for 2.5 months and
king penguins that fast for 4 to 6 months. It must be remembered that stress is not something that can
be avoided throughout the course of life and there is stress that is actually beneficial to the animal.
By definition, the absence of stress is death (Selye, 1973). Fasting can also be the result of an altera-
tion in the endocrinology of the hen (Swanson and Bell, 1974a). In wild birds, hormonal changes
are typically associated with molting and broodiness, and seasonal changes result in limited food
supply, so the husbandry practice of molting in the commercial egg and breeder industries is based
168 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

on those principles. The hen is capable of coping with and compensating for changing conditions in
its environment to maintain physiological homeostasis (Clarenburg, 1986; Freeman, 1987). The hen
responds by using physical, chemical, anatomical, and physiological mechanisms to maintain this
homeostasis. The hen has functions that are constitutive or always functioning, and others that are
adaptive, that is, they are used as the need arises to maintain the homeostatic state.
The following are some of the physiological mechanisms, both constitutive and adaptive, that are
used to respond to limited or total restriction of food that occurs postprandial, between meals, and
during a fast, as determining when one mechanism starts and another begins is arbitrary (Clarenburg,
1986). The metabolism of chickens readily evokes these physiological processes throughout the
course of a regular day. Upon prolonged absence of food, other essential nutrients are depleted (for
example, vitamins, minerals, essential amino and fatty acids, lipotropic factors, and carbohydrates),
which can be life threatening. Starvation triggers a collapse of homeostasis as basal metabolic rate
declines and the hen minimizes all energy expenditures in order to survive. This response does
not occur in anorexia associated with animal husbandry practices. Rice (1905) and Rice, Nixon,
and Rogers (1908) were the first to report on fasting in laying chickens to induce molting of hens
in commercial layer flocks. However, during eras of depressed financial returns on egg production,
research on molting experienced renewed interest as a means of extending the productive life of
the hen (King and Trollope, 1934; Frasier, 1948; Swanson and Bell, 1974a). Modified photoperiods
combined with withdrawal of feed and water were used in the 1940s and research interest in induced
molting has continued. Several types of induced anorexia and durations of anorexia have been
widely examined in chickens based on total feed restriction (Frasier, 1948; Marble, 1963; Bierer and
Eleazer, 1966; Noles, 1966; Bell, 1970, 1984; Swanson and Bell, 1970, 1974a, 1974b, 1974c, 1974d;
Summers and Leeson, 1977; Brake, Thaxton, and Benton, 1979; Brake and Thaxton, 1979a, 1979b;
Washburn, Peavey, and Renwick, 1980; Lee, 1982, 1984; Rowland and Brake, 1982; van Kempen,
1983; Brake and Carey, 1983; Garlich et al., 1984; Zimmerman, Andrews, and McGinnis, 1987;
Kuney and Bell, 1987; Carey and Brake, 1989; Savage, 1992; Koelkebeck, Parsons, and Leeper,
1993; Brake, 1994; Bell et al., 1995; Hurwitz et al., 1995; Anderson, 1998, 2000; Davis, Anderson,
and Carrol, 2000). Other areas of research have included limited feeding, altering the mineral con-
tent of the diet, such as excessive dietary magnesium (Shippee et al., 1979), excessive dietary iodide
(Arrington et al., 1967), excessive dietary zinc (Shippee et al., 1979; Bell, Swanson, and Kuney, 1980;
Berry and Brake, 1985; Goodman, Norton, and Diambra, 1986; Berry, Gildersleeve, and Brake,
1987; Breeding, 1991), dietary calcium restriction (Douglas, Harms, and Wilson, 1972), and dietary
sodium restriction (Whitehead and Shannon, 1974; Hughes and Whitehead, 1974; Whitehead and
Sharp, 1976; Nesbeth, Douglas, and Harms, 1976a, 1976b; Wakeling, 1978; Said et al., 1984; Berry
and Brake, 1985). However, all of these methods resulted in a forced anorexic state and a significant
loss in body weight. Water deprivation was also employed, but Palafox (1976) and Swanson, Bell,
and Kuney (1978) reported no beneficial effects and, in fact, found undesired post-molt effects on
performance of laying hens. Thus, water deprivation during the molt was abandoned. New molting
methods have been reviewed and developed as non-anorexic methods have been adopted by the
layer hen industry (Anderson and Havenstein, 2007; Biggs et al., 2003, 2004; Anderson, 2002). All
concurred that the birds produce an equivalent total number of eggs and a greater egg income. They
further suggested that economically feasible alternatives to the more traditional molting methods
resulted in better performance of hens compared to that for hens not induced to molt.

EUTHANAsiA
Euthanasia is the act of inducing humane death in an animal. Ultimately, this means that the ani-
mal should be exposed to minimal stress and anxiety brought on by the pain that the animal might
perceive before unconsciousness and death. The poultry industries are faced with two needs in this
area. There is a need for euthanasia of individual birds that become sick or injured during the course
of the production period and a need for mass euthanasia of whole houses of birds in instances such
Animal Welfare 169

as infectious disease outbreaks (Benson et al., 2009). The use of gas (CO2) and cervical dislocation
are two methods that work well for immediate euthanasia of sick or injured birds.
The Canadian Council on Animal Care (2010) defines the use of CO2 as conditionally acceptable
with emphasis on proper methods if used. Carbon dioxide would normally be used as emergency
backup on small populations of poultry. A proper chamber must be used, and proper precautions
must be taken to protect workers involved. Compressed CO2 gas in cylinders should be used to
allow inflow into the chamber to be regulated precisely. With an animal in the chamber, an optimal
flow rate should displace at least 20% of the chamber volume per minute. It is important to verify
that an animal is dead before removing it from the chamber. Chambers for exposing poultry to CO2
must have a view port to allow verification that the birds are down for at least 2 min before being
removed from the chamber. A clear plastic bag is suitable for administering CO2 to very young poul-
try, generally less than 10 days of age, or for live piped embryos, which are still in the shell. A sealed
box with the ability to maintain a 60 to 70% concentration of CO2 gas as it is gradually increased
at a rate of 20 to 30% per minute, exhaust, and view ports is acceptable for older birds as long as
the CO2 atmosphere within the chamber is sufficient to euthanize the bird (AVMA, 2007). Loss of
consciousness is caused within 10 to 15 sec and death is typically induced within 5 min of exposure.
Death should be verified by extending the exposure time of the bird to the CO2 atmosphere for an
additional 10 min.
Cervical dislocation by hand is a second method that can be used for smaller birds, but the
Burdizzo Emasculator Apparatus is used for larger birds. The procedures for cervical dislocation
by hand begin by restraining the bird by both legs at the hock joint. Then the head is grasped by
placing the index finger or thumb at the occipital crest just above the neck at the junction of the
atlas and caudal vertebra and the other finger being placed under the lower mandible (Chamberlin,
1943). Then with one quick motion, the neck is stretched and the head rotated backward, simultane-
ously by pinching it between the thumb and forefinger. The vertebrae between the atlas and caudal
vertebra are dislocated simultaneously, which severs the spinal cord and tears the jugular vein and
carotid artery. The procedures for cervical dislocation using the Burdizzo Emasculator Apparatus
begin with restraining the bird’s legs and/or wings (depending on body size) using an appropriate
device or having one person hold the bird by both legs at the shanks, resting the bird with its breast
on a table or on the floor. The neck of the bird is placed between the jaws of the Burdizzo Apparatus
at the junction of the atlas and caudal vertebra and the jaws are closed quickly by pulling the handles
together until the handles of the Burdizzo Apparatus lock together. The bird is released after all
reflexes cease.
Govrin-Lippmann and Devor (1978) and Jensen et al. (1985) indicated that injury resulting from
discharges of peripheral nerves subside within seconds and that all afferent activity ceases. This
response causes activity of the muscles in poultry immediately after the severing of the spinal cord.
Hughes and Gentle (1995) and Gentle (1991) provided physiological evidence that there is no periph-
eral neural input immediately after severing of the nerves of the spinal cord, indicating a pain-free
period immediately after the severing of the spinal cord. This indicates, in the case of cervical dislo-
cation and decapitation, that when the burst of nerve discharge occurs, there is no cerebral receptor
site functioning to perceive the nerve impulses sent to the brain. Therefore, the brain of the animal
does not sense the burst of neural activity through cervical dislocation or decapitation. The EEG
recordings made from severed heads are merely recording the random firing of neurons that are not
indicative of pain (Scadding, 1981). Chapman et al. (1985) indicated that animals have responses
to neural stimulation that differ from humans. This makes it difficult to draw strong, clinically
relevant conclusions from experimental observations on animals. Cervical dislocation is one of the
primary and easiest methods of euthanasia. Mass euthanasia because of diseases or natural disasters
is relatively new to the industry, but the need became apparent because of diseases such as avian
influenza in Southeast Asia and natural disasters like Hurricane Floyd in North Carolina. Methods
using water-based foams, used in fire suppression, have been developed for emergencies where
large numbers of birds must be euthanized at once. These methods were conditionally approved
170 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

by USDA-APHIS in 2006 for meat-type chickens. This process has been verified as effective in a
number of other species (Benson et al., 2009).
Stunning prior to euthanasia for processing is now done by two methods: electrical and modi-
fied atmosphere (Raj, 1998). The issue associated with electrical stunning is that birds may not be
stunned properly and may recover their somatosensory evoked potentials in the brain, which is a
significant welfare concern. New electrical stunning methods appear to have minimized this prob-
lem (Prinz et al., 2010). Modified atmosphere stunning has been developed and used successfully in
the European community (Poole and Fletcher, 1998). Both methods are acceptable and, depending
on the gasses used and timing of the euthanasia sequence in the processing plant, have a similar
disadvantage of somatosensory recovery if euthanasia is not done promptly.

TRANsPORT AND CATCHiNG

The transport of older birds requires catching them for transport, which is followed by movement
of the birds on trucks from the rearing facilities to the production unit and later to the processing
plant (Lacy and Czarick, 1998; Scott, Connell, and Lambe, 1998; Kannan et al., 1997). Catching
and transport are novel experiences for birds and they are equally stressful regardless of rearing
environment. The key in all of these processes is gentle handling of the birds to minimize injuries.
This means that individuals must be properly trained in handling procedures, operation of loading
equipment, and methods for transport of birds (Nijdam et al., 2004). In addition, the transport truck
must be capable of providing protection for the birds from extremes in temperature during transport
by using side panels or curtains and to ensure adequate air movement in the center of the loads dur-
ing warm and cold weather.

REFERENCEs
Adams A.W., and J.V. Craig. 1985. Effects of crowding and cage shape on productivity and profitability of
caged layers: A survey. Poult. Sci. 64: 238–242.
Agriculture Canada Publication 1757E. 1989. Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of
poultry from hatchery to processing plant. Communications Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.
AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). 2007. AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. http://www.
avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
Anderson, K.E. 1991. 28th North Carolina Layer Performance and Management Test: Final Production Report.
28(3). http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/tech_manuals/layer_reports/28_final_report.pdf
Anderson, K.E. 1996. Final Report of the Thirty-First North Carolina Layer Performance and Management
Test: Production Report. 31(4). Accessed November 16, 2010. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/
tech_manuals/layer_reports/31_final_report.pdf
Anderson, K.E. 1998. Final Report of the Thirty-Second North Carolina Layer Performance and Management
Test. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 32(4). http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/tech_
manuals/layer_reports/32_final_report.pdf
Anderson, K.E. 2000. Final Report of the Thirty-Third North Carolina Layer Performance and Management
Test: Production Report. 33(4). http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/tech_manuals/layer_reports/33_
final_report.pdf
Anderson, K.E. 2002. Final Report of the Thirty-Fourth North Carolina Layer Performance and Management
Test. 34(4). North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/
poulsci/tech_manuals/layer_performance_tests.html#layer_34
Anderson, K.E. 2007. Final Cycle Report of the Thirty-Sixth North Carolina Layer Performance and Management
Test. 36(5). http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/tech_manuals/layer_reports/36_final_report.pdf
Anderson, K.E. 2009a. Single Production Cycle Report of the Thirty Seventh North Carolina Layer Performance
and Management Test. 37(4). http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/tech_manuals/layer_reports/37_
single_cycle_report.pdf
Anderson, K.E. 2009b. Final Report of the Thirty-Seventh North Carolina Layer Performance and Management
Test. 37(5). Accessed November 16, 2010. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/tech_manuals/layer_
reports/37_final_report.pdf
Animal Welfare 171

Anderson, K.E. 2009c. Overview of natural and organic egg production: Looking back to the future. J. Appl.
Poult. Res. 18: 348–354.
Anderson, K.E., and G.B. Havenstein. 2007. Effects of alternative molting programs and population on layer
performance: Results of the Thirty-Fifth North Carolina Layer Performance and Management Test. J.
Appl. Poult. Res. 16: 365–380.
Appleby, M.C., and B.O. Hughes. 1991. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: Environmental,
physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 47: 109–128.
Arrington, L.R., R.A. Santa Cruz, R.H. Harms, and H.R. Wilson. 1967. Effects of excess dietary iodine upon
pullets and laying hens. J. Nutr. 92: 325–330.
Beckman, B. 2010. Chick well-being at the hatchery. Hy-Line North America, Hy-Line Technical School, Des
Moines, IA, May 2010. http://www.hyline.com/userdocs/library/Beckman.pdf
Bell, D. 1970. Further investigations of molting methods. Proceedings of the Poultry Institute, University of
California.
Bell, D. 1984. Fast/slow molting techniques. Proceedings of the Poultry Institute, University of California.
Bell, D. 1987. Is molting still a viable replacement alternative? Poultry Tribune 93: 32–35.
Bell, D., D. McMartin, F. Bradley, and R. Ernst. 1995. Animal care series: Egg-type layer flock care practices.
California Poultry Workgroup, Cooperative Extension, University of California.
Bell, D., M.H. Swanson, and D.R. Kuney. 1980. A comparison of force molting methods II. Progress in Poultry
No. 21 (May), University of California.
Bell, D.D., and W.D. Weaver, Jr. 2002. Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production, 5th ed. Norwell, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Benson, E.R., R.L. Alphin, M.D. Dawson, and G.W. Malone. 2009. Use of water-based foam to depopulate
ducks and other species. Poult. Sci. 88: 904–910.
Berry, W.D., and J. Brake. 1985. Comparison of parameters associated with molt induced by fasting, zinc, and
low dietary sodium in caged layers. Poult. Sci. 64: 2027–2036.
Berry, W.D., R.P. Gildersleeve, and J. Brake. 1987. Characterization of different hematological responses dur-
ing molts induced by zinc or fasting. Poult. Sci. 66: 1841–1845.
Bierer, B.W., and T.H. Eleazer. 1966. The relationship of feed and water deprivation on greenish gizzard mucous
membrane and contents in chickens. Poult. Sci. 45: 379–380.
Biggs, P.E., M.W. Douglas, K.W. Koelkebeck, and C.M. Parsons. 2003. Evaluation of nonfeed removal meth-
ods for molting programs. Poult. Sci. 82: 749–753.
Biggs, P.E., M.E. Persia, K.W. Koelkebeck, and C.M. Parsons. 2004. Further evaluation of nonfeed removal
methods for molting programs. Poult. Sci. 83: 745–752.
Bogner, V.H., W. Peschke, V. Seda, and K. Popp. 1979. Studie zum flächenbedarf von legehennen in käfigen bei
besttimmten aktivitäten. Berl. Münch. Tierärztl. Wochenschr. 92: 340–343.
Brake, J.T. 1994. Progress in induced moulting. Poultry Intl. 10(6): 44–46.
Brake, J., and J.B. Carey. 1983. Induced molting of commercial layers. North Carolina Agricultural Extension
Service. Poult. Sci.ence and Technology Guide No. 10. Extension Poult. Sci.ence, Raleigh, NC.
Brake, J., and P. Thaxton. 1979a. Physiological changes in caged layers during a forced molt. 1. Body tempera-
ture and selected blood constituents. Poult. Sci. 58: 699–706.
Brake, J., and P. Thaxton. 1979b. Physiological changes in caged layers during a forced molt. 2. Gross changes
in organs. Poult. Sci. 58: 707–716.
Brake, J., P. Thaxton, and E.H. Benton. 1979. Physiological changes in caged layers during a forced molt. 3.
Plasma thyroxine, plasma triiodothyronine, adrenal cholesterol, and total adrenal steroids. Poult. Sci. 58:
1345–1350.
Breeding, S.W. 1991. Molt induced by dietary zinc in a low calcium diet. Masters of Science Thesis, Physiology
Program. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Buchholz, R. 1996. Thermoregulatory role of the unfeathered head and neck in male wild turkeys. The Auk
113(2): 310–318.
CCAC (Canadian Council on Animal Care). 2010. CCAC guidelines on:euthanasia of animals used in science.
htta://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Euthanasia.pdf (Accessed December 2010).
Carey, J.B. 1990. Influence of age at final beak trimming on pullet and layer performance. Poult. Sci. 69:
1461–1466.
Carey, J.B., and Brake, J. 1989. Induced molting of commercial layers. North Carolina Agricultural Extension
Service. Poult. Sci.ence and Technology Guide No. 10. Extension Poult. Sci.ence, Raleigh, NC.
Chamberlain, F.W. 1943. Atlas of Avian Anatomy, Osteology, Arthrology, and Myology. Michigan State College,
Ag. Exp. Station.
172 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Chapman, C.R., K.L. Casey, R. Dubner, K.M. Foley, R.H. Gracely, and A.M. Reading. 1985. Pain measure-
ment: An overview. Pain 22: 1–31.
Clarenburg, R. 1986. Syllabus for the Course of Veterinary Physiology I. Eleventh Ed. Department of Anatomy
and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
Cole, R.K., and F.B. Hutt. 1954. The effect of dubbing on egg production and viability. Poult. Sci. 33: 966–972.
Craig, J.V., and H.-Y. Lee. 1989. Research note: Genetic stocks of white leghorn type differ in relative produc-
tivity when beaks are intact versus trimmed. Poult. Sci. 68: 1720–1723.
Craig, J.V., and H.-Y. Lee. 1990. Beak trimming and genetic stock effects on behavior and mortality from can-
nibalism in white leghorn type pullets. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 25: 107–123.
Craig, J.V., and W. Muir. 1996. Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: Beak related mortality,
feathering, and body weight responses. Poult. Sci. 75: 294–302.
Davis, G.S., K.E. Anderson, and A.S. Carrol. 2000. The effects of long term caging and molt of single comb
white leghorn hens on heterophil to lymphocyte ratios, corticosterone and thyroid hormones. Poult. Sci.
79: 514–518.
Davis, G.S., K.E. Anderson, and D.R. Jones. 2004. The effects of different beak trimming techniques on plasma
corticosterone and performance criteria in single comb white leghorn hens. Poult. Sci. 83: 1624–1628.
Douglas, C.R., R.H. Harms, and H.R. Wilson. 1972. The use of extremely low dietary calcium to alter the pro-
duction pattern of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 51: 2015–2020.
Dryden, J. 1916. Poultry Breeding and Management. New York: Orange Judd Company.
Frasier, F. 1948. How force molting works. Pacific Poultryman, April, pp. 7, 18–20.
Freeman, B.M., 1987. The stress syndrome. Worlds Poult. Sci. 43(1): 15–19.
Garlich, J.D., J. Brake, C.R. Parkhurst, J.P. Thaxton, and G.W. Morgan. 1984. Physiological profile of caged
layers during one production year, molt, and postmolt: Egg production, egg shell quality, liver, femur, and
blood parameters. Poult. Sci. 63: 339–343.
Gentle, M.J. 1986a. Beak trimming in poultry. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 42: 268–275.
Gentle, M.J. 1986b. Neuroma formation following partial beak amputation (beak trimming) in the chicken. Res.
Vet. Sci. 41: 383–385.
Gentle, M.J. 1991. The acute effects of amputation on peripheral trigeminal afferents in Gallus gallus domes-
ticus. Pain 46: 97–103.
Gentle, M.J., and J. Breward. 1985. The bill tip organ of the chicken. J. Anatomy 145: 79.
Gentle, M.J., and L.H. Hunter. 1988. Neural consequences of partial toe amputation in chickens. Res. Vet. Sci.
45: 374–376.
Gibson, S.W., P. Dunn, and B.O. Hughes. 1989. The performance and behavior of laying fowls in a covered
strawyard system. Res. Dev. Agric. 5: 153–163.
Goodman, B.L., R.A. Norton, Jr., and O.H. Diambra. 1986. Zinc oxide to induce molt in layers. Poult. Sci. 65:
2008–2014.
Govrin-Lippmann, R., and M. Devor. 1978. Ongoing activity in severed nerves: Source and variation with time.
Brain Res. 159: 406–410.
Gottschaldt, K-M., H. Fruhstorfer, W. Schmidt, and I. Kruft. 1982. Thermosensitivity and its possible fine
structure basis in mechanoreceptors in the beak and skin of geese. J. Comp. Neurol. 205: 219–245.
Havenstein, G.B., P.R. Ferket, and M.A. Qureshi. 2003. Growth, livability, and feed conversion of 1957 versus
2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 82: 1500–1508.
Hester, P.Y. 2005. Impact of science and management on the welfare of egg laying strains of hens. Poult. Sci.
84: 687–696.
Honaker, C.F., and P.L. Ruszler. 2004. The effect of claw and beak reduction on growth parameters and fearful-
ness of two Leghorn strains. Poult. Sci. 83: 873–881.
Humane Slaughter Association. 2002. Codes of Practice for the Disposal of Chicks in Hatcheries, 2nd ed.
Wheathampstead, UK: Humane Slaughter Association.
Hughes, B.O., and P. Dun. 1986. A comparison of hens housed intensively in cages or outside on range. Zootech.
Int. Feb: 44–46.
Hughes, B.O., and M.J. Gentle. 1995. Beak trimming of poultry: Its implications for welfare. Worlds Poult.
Sci. J. 51: 51–61.
Hughes, B.O., and C.C. Whitehead. 1974. Sodium deprivation, feather pecking and activity in laying hens. Br.
Poult. Sci. 15: 435–439.
Hurwitz, S., E. Wax, Y. Nisenbaum, M. Ben‑Moshe, and I. Plavnik. 1998. The response of laying hens to
induced molt as affected by strain and age. Poult. Sci. 77: 22–31.
Hurwitz, S., E. Wax, Y. Nisenbaum, and I. Plavnik. 1995. Responses of laying hens to forced molt procedures
of variable length with or without light restriction. Poult. Sci. 74: 1745–1753.
Animal Welfare 173

Jensen, T.S., B. Krebs, J. Nielsen, and P. Rasmussen. 1985. Immediate and long-term phantom limb pain
in amputees: Incidence, clinical characteristics and relationship to pre-amputation limb pain. Pain 21:
267–278.
Jull, M.A. 1951. Poultry Husbandry, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Kannan, G., J.L. Heath, C.J. Wabeck, M.C.P. Souza, C.J. Howe, and J.A. Mench. 1997. Effects of crating and
transport on stress and meat quality characteristics in broilers. Poult. Sci. 76: 523–529.
King, D.F., and G.A. Trollope. 1934. Force molting of hens and all night lighting as factors in egg production.
Circ. No. 64, Alabama Polytechnic Inst., Auburn.
Koelkebeck, K.W., C.M. Parsons, and R.W. Leeper. 1993. Effect of early feed withdrawal on subsequent laying
hen performance. Poult. Sci. 72: 2229–2235.
Krueger, K.K. 2008. High feed prices! Reevaluating turkey slaughter ages and weights. Proceedings of the NC
Turkey Industry Days, J. Grimes, Ed. Wilmington, NC, Sept. 24–25, pp. 19–28.
Kuney, D.R., and D.D. Bell. 1987. Effect of molt duration on performance. University of California, Extension
Bulletin, pp. 1–10.
Kuo, F.-L., J.V. Craig, and W.M. Muir. 1991. Selection and beak-trimming effects on behavior cannibalism and
short term production traits in white leghorn pullets. Poult. Sci. 70: 1057–1068.
Lacy, M.P., and M. Czarick. 1998. Mechanical harvesting of broilers. Poult. Sci. 77: 1794–1797.
Lagadic, H., and J.M. Faure. 1987. Preferences of domestic hens for cage size and floor types as measured by
operant conditioning. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 19: 147–155.
Lee, K. 1980. Long term effects of Marek’s disease vaccination with cell-free herpesvirus of turkey and age at
debeaking on performance and mortality of white leghorns. Poult. Sci. 69: 2002–2007.
Lee, K. 1982. Effects of forced molt period on postmolt performance of Leghorn hens. Poult. Sci. 61:
1594–1598.
Lee, K. 1984. Feed restriction during the growing period, forced molt, and egg production. Poult. Sci. 63:
1895–1897.
Lilburn, M.S., K.E. Nestor, R. Stonerock, and T. Wehrkamp. 1993. The effect of feed and water withdrawal on
body weight and carcass characteristics of molted turkey breeders. Poult. Sci. 77: 30–36.
Marble, D.R. 1963. Comparison of pullet and hen flocks at the New York Random Sample Tests. Cornell
University Agricultural Experiment Station, New York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, NY. Bulletin
979.
McEwen, S. A., and S. Barbut. 1992. Survey of turkey down grading at slaughter: Carcass defects and associa-
tions with transport, toenail trimming, and type of bird. Poult. Sci. 71: 1107–1115.
Mitchell, M.A., and P.J. Kettlewell. 2004. Transport of chicks, pullets and spent hens. In: Welfare of the Laying
Hen, G.C. Perry, Ed. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England: Carfax Publishing Co., pp. 361–374.
Najdam, E., P. Arens, E. Lambooij, E. Decuypere, and J.A. Stegeman. 2004. Factors influencing bruises and
mortality of broilers during catching, transport, and lairage. Poult. Sci. 83: 1610–1615.
Nesbeth, W.G., C.R. Douglas, and R.H. Harms. 1976a. Response of laying hens to a low salt diet. Poult. Sci.
55: 2128–2132.
Nesbeth, W.G., C.R. Douglas, and R.H. Harms. 1976b. The potential use of dietary salt deficiency for the force
resting of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 55: 2375–2380.
Noles, R.K. 1966. Subsequent production and egg quality of forced molted hens. Poult. Sci. 45: 50–57.
Ouart, M.D., G.B. Russell, and H.R. Wilson. 1989. Mating behavior in response to toe nail removal in broiler
breeders. Zootechnica International 7: 35–37.
Palafox, A.L. 1976. Comparative performance of non-force molted and force-molted White Leghorn Hens.
Poult. Sci. 55: 2076.
Poole, G.H., and D.L. Fletcher. 1998. Comparison of a modified atmosphere stunning-killing system to con-
ventional electrical stunning and killing on selected broiler breast muscle rigor development and meat
quality attributes. Poult. Sci. 77: 342–347.
Prinz, S., G. Van Oijen, F. Ehinger, A. Coenen, and W. Bessei. 2010 Electroencephalograms and physical
reflexes of broilers after electrical waterbath stunning using and alternating current. Poult. Sci. 89:
1265–1274.
Raj, A.B.M., and P.E. Whittington. 1995. Euthanasia of day-old chicks with carbon dioxide and argon.
Veterinary Record 136: 292–294.
Raj, M. 1998. Welfare during stunning and slaughter of poultry. Poult. Sci. 77: 1815–1819.
Rice, J.E. 1905. In: The Feeding of Poultry, The Poultry Book, W.G. Johnson and G.O. Brown, Eds. New York:
Doubleday, Page and Co.
Rice, J.E., C. Nixon, and C.A. Rogers. 1908. The molting of fowls. Bulletin 238, Cornell University, Agricultural
Experiment Station of the College of Agriculture, Department of Poult. Sci.ence, Ithaca, NY.
174 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Roland, D.A., Sr., and J. Brake. 1982. Influence of premolt production on postmolt performance with explana-
tion for improvement in egg production due to force molting. Poult. Sci. 61: 2473–2481.
Rolon, A., R.J. Buhr, and D.L. Cunningham. 1993. Twenty‑four‑hour feed withdrawal and limited feeding as
alternative methods for induction of molt in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 72: 776–785.
Said, N.W., T.W. Sullivan, H.R. Bird, and M.L. Sunde. 1984. A comparison of the effect of two force molting
methods on performance of two commercial strains of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 63: 2399–2403.
Savage, S. 1992. Molting programs: Get more uniform hens with better bones. Poultry Digest 51: 16.
Scadding, J.W. 1981. Development of ongoing activity, mechanosensitivity, and adrenaline sensitivity in sev-
ered peripheral nerve axons. Exp. Neurol. 73: 345–364.
Scott, G.B., B.J. Connell, and N.R. Lambe. 1998. The fear levels after transport of hens from cages and a free-
range system. Poult. Sci. 77: 62–66.
Selye, H. 1973. The evolution of the stress concept. Am. Sci. 61: 692–699.
Shippee, R.L., P.R. Stake, U. Koehn, J.L. Lambert, and R.W. Simmons. 1979. High dietary zinc or magnesium
as forced‑resting agents for laying hens. Poult. Sci. 58: 949–954.
Spratt, D. 1993. Basic Husbandry for Turkeys: Factsheet. February 1993. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs, Ontario.
Statutory Instruments. 2007. The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (Wales) Regulations 2007. No. 1029
(W.96) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/wales/wsi2007/wsi_20071029_en_1
Stevens, L.. 1996. Avian Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Summers, J.D., and S. Leeson. 1977. Sequential effects of restricted feeding and force-molting on laying hen
performance. Poult. Sci. 56: 600–604.
Swanson, M. H. and D.D. Bell. 1970. Field tests of forced molting practices and performance in commercial
egg production flocks. Proceedings of the World’s Poult. Sci.ence Meeting, Spain.
Swanson, M.H., and D.D. Bell. 1974a. Force molting of chickens. 1. Introduction. Univ. of Calif. Coop. Ext.
Bull. AXT‑410.
Swanson, M.H., and D.D. Bell. 1974b. Force molting of chickens. 2. Methods. Univ. of Calif. Coop. Ext. Bull.
AXT‑411.
Swanson, M.H., and D.D. Bell. 1974c. Force molting of chickens. 3. Performance characteristics. Univ. of
Calif. Coop. Ext. Bull. AXT‑412.
Swanson, M.H., and D.D. Bell. 1974d. Force molting of chickens. 4. Egg quality. Univ. of Calif. Coop. Ext.
Bull. AXT‑413.
Swanson, M.K., D.D. Bell, and D.R. Kuney. 1978. Effects of water restriction and feed withdrawal time on
forced molt performance. Poult. Sci. 57: 1116.
Tauson, R. 2000. Producción, salud y manejo en jaulas equipadas. Congreso Internacional de Produccion y
Sanidad Animal. XXXVI Symposium of the World’s Poult. Sci.ence Association, Barcelona, Spain, pp.
32–46.
TNAU Agritech Portal. 2010. Turkey Management. http://agritech.tnau.ac.in/animal_husbandry/animhus_tur_
management.html (Accessed 10/15/2010).
United Egg Producers. 2010. Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks, 2010 Edition.
United Egg Producers, Alpharetta, GA. http://www.unitedegg.org/information/pdf/UEP_2010_Animal_
Welfare_Guidelines.pdf
van Kampen, M. 1983. Heat stress, feed restriction, and the lipid composition of egg yolk. Poult. Sci. 62:
819–823.
Wakeling, D.E. 1978. The use of low calcium and low sodium diets to induce an egg production pause in com-
mercial layers. Agricultural Development and Advisory Service Bull. No. 8L‑51‑8‑76, Starcross, Exeter,
Devon.
Wang, B., B.M. Rathgeber, T. Astatkie, and J.L. Macisaac. 2008. The stress and fear levels of microwave toe-
treated broiler chickens grown with two photoperiod programs. Poult. Sci. 87: 1248–1252
Washburn, K.W., R. Peavey, and G.M. Renwick. 1980. Relationship of strain variation and feed restriction to
variation in blood pressure and response to heat stress. Poult. Sci. 59: 2586–2588.
Whitehead, C.C., and D.W.F. Shannon. 1974. The control of egg production using a sodium‑deficient diet. Br.
Poult. Sci. 15: 429–434.
Whitehead, C.C., and P.J. Sharp. 1976. An assessment of the optimal range of dietary sodium for inducing a
pause in laying. Br. Poult. Sci. 17: 601–611.
Zimmerman, N.G., D.K. Andrews, and J. McGinnis.1987. Comparison of several induced molting methods on
subsequent performance of single comb white Leghorn hens. Poult. Sci. 66: 408–417.
Animal Welfare 175

BEEF CATTLE
Terry Engle
Animal agriculture is one of the fundamental cornerstones that have helped shape the development
of the United States. Over the last 100 years, animal agriculture has changed in dramatic ways.
Consolidation of livestock production facilities has increased production efficiency while maintain-
ing low costs of meat, milk, and eggs to the consumer. However, consolidation has yielded fewer
people working directly in animal agriculture and has shifted the focus of animal care from animal
husbandry to animal productivity. This disconnect has caused societal concerns for animal well-
being and lack of citizen understanding of, and support for, animal agriculture. This section will
discuss ways in which animal comfort can be practically vectored into beef cattle production.
Beef cattle production has drastically changed over the past 50 years. The implementation of new
technologies and production techniques has enhanced the efficiency of production of meat prod-
ucts. The increase in production efficiency has enabled producers to produce more products with
fewer animals, while maintaining a high-quality product at a low cost for the consumer. Enhanced
beef cattle production efficiency is primarily a result of improvements in feed technologies, genetic
selection, animal health, and management.
With the increased focus on enhancing production efficiency, the individual animal itself cannot
be forgotten. The basic beef cattle husbandry principles still apply to modern beef cattle production
today: Provide the basic needs for cattle (feed, protection, medical assistance, etc.) and the animal will
provide product for human consumption. Thus, it is in the producers’ best interest to maintain an envi-
ronment wherein beef cattle can thrive—where disease is kept to a minimum, moribund animals are
expeditiously treated or humanely euthanized, and feed, water, and shelter are in adequate supply.
Several food animal production systems have evolved into systems where environmental condi-
tions, feeding regimes, and animal activities are tightly controlled in order to increase production
efficiency. Beef cattle production has taken a different approach to increase production efficiency.
Typically, a cow-calf operator confines cattle in open pastures and allows the animals to harvest
native forage. When indigenous feedstuffs become incapable of supporting proper cattle nutrition,
the rancher supplies stockpiled feedstuffs to compensate for the nutrient void until the indigenous
forages are replenished. Stockpiled feedstuffs can be items such as hay, by-products from other
industries such as cull vegetables, fermentation by-products, bakery waste, etc. The ability of these
animals to harvest their own feed as well as their ability to utilize by-products from other industries
has been instrumental in enhancing cow-calf production efficiency.
In a commercial cow-calf operation, a certain percentage of the female calves born each year are
retained in the cow herd as replacement females. At weaning, females not retained as replacement
animals, cows being removed from the production herd, and the majority of male calves (typically
castrated at or shortly after birth), enter the cattle-feeding sector of beef production. In general,
these animals can be marketed through an auction system, transported directly to a feedlot setting,
or allowed to graze crop residues throughout the winter to increase body weight and, therefore, enter
the feedlot at a heavier weight at some time in the future. Nevertheless, calves entering the feedlot
sector are transported from pasture-based production settings to feedlot settings where cattle are
housed in group pens, cared for daily, sometimes comingled with cattle from other geographic
locations, and a total mixed ration containing all the appropriate nutrients is delivered daily, thus
eliminating the need for the animal to harvest feed on its own via grazing. Cattle typically spend
approximately 140 to 200 days (depending on the weight at which they enter the feedlot) in a feedlot
setting until slaughtered at approximately 14 to 16 months of age (heifers and steers).
Due to the length of time that it takes to produce beef for human consumption (from breeding to
slaughter), proper nutrition and abatement of animal stressors are fundamental animal husbandry
components essential for optimizing animal health and productivity. Environmental and manage-
ment stressors can increase disease outbreaks and decrease efficiency of food producing animals,
176 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

thus increasing the cost of production and ultimately affecting animal welfare. Adverse weather
conditions, including both the effects of hot and cold climatic conditions, are particularly difficult
for grazing animals as well as confinement-fed animals housed in outdoor facilities. Prolonged hot
or cold environmental conditions can decrease nutrient quality of feedstuffs as well as alter the
nutrient utilization of feed by the animal. Decreased nutrient quality and the need to metabolically
repartition nutrients to cope with extreme climatic conditions diminish the ability of the animal
to immunologically protect itself from environmental pathogens, ultimately compromising animal
health and overall productivity. Therefore, the subsequent sections in this chapter are devoted to
discussing practical ways to enhance animal comfort in beef cattle production systems by minimiz-
ing animal stress.
Stress and its relationship to the occurrence of disease have long been recognized. Stress is the
nonspecific response of the body to any demand made upon it (Selye, 1973). Stressors relative to
animal production include infection, environmental factors, parturition, lactation, weaning, trans-
port, and handling. Stress has been reported to decrease animal production (growth, reproduction,
efficiency, etc.) and overall animal welfare.

SOCiAl BEHAViOR
Beef cattle are social, gregarious animals that can thrive in various environmental conditions.
Since cattle are social animals that develop hierarchies within the herd, introducing new animals
to an established herd or pen of cattle can be stressful to both resident animals and new arrivals.
Numerous dominance-subordination experiments from the late 1950s and 1970s (Wieckert, 1970)
indicate that a hierarchy is established within a few days of animals being comingled and that
dominant animals do stake out a “territory.” New animals introduced into an established group
will spend time and energy learning the established hierarchy. This can be accomplished within a
few days, but noticeable agitation across the group will be observed until the new animal learns the
hierarchy and is accepted into the group. Therefore, introducing new animals to established groups
of animals as infrequently as possible can help minimize stress.

ENViRONmENTAl STREssORs
As indicated earlier, beef cattle production takes place outdoors in pastures or large feedlot pens.
Therefore, beef cattle are exposed to various environmental conditions throughout the course of a
year. Depending on the geographical location, cattle can be exposed to ambient temperatures below
freezing or in excess of 38°C for prolonged periods of time. When climatic conditions exceed upper
and lower critical temperatures for cattle, the animal needs to compensate metabolically for such
a deviation. Any time an animal has to expend energy to heat or cool itself, the overall production
efficiency of that animal is decreased.

COlD STREss
Cattle are typically cold-hardy animals (Young, 1981). However, the ability of cattle to tolerate cold
temperatures requires that they remain well insulated from the environment. Maintaining effective
insulation requires protection from the wind, maintenance of a dry hair coat, and protection from
cold and frozen or wet and muddy conditions (Wagner, Grubb, and Engle, 2008). Providing shelter
during times of inclement weather will improve animal efficiency (Young, 1981) and well-being.
However, building extensive structures for beef cattle in cow-calf operations is not economically
feasible. Allowing range cows and calves access to natural structures such as trees, rocks, etc.,
and utilizing existing structures such as stockpiled hay and buildings as windbreaks can be very
effective at minimizing the impact of cold weather. Furthermore, providing bedding, such as straw,
can help keep cattle dry during times of wet, muddy conditions.
Animal Welfare 177

Feedlot operators may be reluctant to provide bedding and windbreaks for cattle during the win-
ter months because, although windbreaks can effectively alleviate the negative impact of wind on
winter performance, airflow in the summer months can be compromised and performance reduced
(Mader et al., 1999). Therefore, unless portable, windbreaks will not likely become common in
areas that experience cold climates in the winter months and hot climates in the summer months.
Providing bedding to cattle can effectively combat cold stress in northern climates (Birkelo and
Lounsbery, 1992). However, feedlot operations may be reluctant to use bedding due to the cost of
removing bedding plus manure from the pens. Furthermore, bedding may retain moisture in pens
and delay drying of the pen surface. Providing bedding as a routine management strategy will
likely not become common during times of typical inclement weather. However, the economics of
providing bedding in the aftermath of a catastrophic winter storm should be evaluated. Wagner et
al. (2008) reported net energy requirements for maintenance of feedlot cattle exposed to a storm
in southeast Colorado in December 2006 and January 2007. Average high and low temperatures
from December 26, 2006, through February 22, 2007, were –2.16°C and –14.69°C, respectively.
Furthermore, snowfalls of 25.4 and 5.08 cm were recorded on December 20 and 21, 2006. An
additional 25.4, 30.48, and 30.48 cm of snow fell on December 29, 30, and 31, 2006, respectively.
Additional snow events occurred on January 13 and 14, January 21, and February 14 and 15, 2007.
The snow pack peaked at 91.44 cm on December 31, 2006, and averaged 32.33 cm ± 0.26 from
December 26, 2006, through February 22, 2007. Net energy required for maintenance (NEm) was
approximately 21.92 Mcal/hd/d or 0.21 Mcal per kg EBW0.75. These data indicate that NEm required
during and in the aftermath of a major winter weather event may be 2.7-fold higher than NEm
required (0.077 × EBW0.75) under thermal neutral conditions. Calculations of lower critical tem-
perature and external insulation indicate that the insulation value of the hair coat of these cattle may
have been inhibited by the moisture, mud, and snow following the storm. Table 8.1 describes the
effect of corn and feeder cattle prices on economic losses ($ per head) associated with a catastrophic
winter storm. These data indicate that applying bedding to feedlot pens after an extensive cold/
snowfall event needs to be considered.

HEAT STREss
Cattle raised in most portions of the United States can be exposed to heat stress during certain
times throughout the year. Typically cattle in cow-calf operations have access to shade provided by
natural (trees, berms, etc.) or constructed (buildings, stockpiled feed, etc.) structures and during the
summer months are exposed to moderate wind speeds that help with cooling. Furthermore, genetic
selection has helped to reduce the impact of heat stress on beef cattle. In general, Bos indicus cattle
are more heat tolerant and parasite resistant than are Bos taurus cattle. Typically, cattle raised in hot
and dry desert climates or hot and humid semi-tropical climates have a certain percentage of Bos
indicus genetics to assist with minimizing heat stress.
Feedlot cattle are typically finished in the high plains of the western United States due to the dry
climate (low precipitation—rain and snow and low humidity). However, periodically cattle finished
in the high plains are exposed to ambient temperatures at or above the thermal neutral zone for
cattle for prolonged periods of time. Feedlot cattle performance can be adversely affected during
prolonged periods of elevated ambient temperatures, especially if the elevated ambient temperature
is coupled with low wind speeds and high humidity (Hahn and Mader, 1997; Mader et al., 1999).
Enhancing an animal’s ability to dissipate heat or reduce solar radiation load can help to dimin-
ish the impact of heat stress on overall animal performance and well-being. Several management
strategies have been implemented by feedlot producers to reduce the effect of heat stress on feedlot
cattle. Providing shade to decrease solar load, but not airflow (i.e., overhead structures), sprinkling
pen surfaces and cattle with water, and restricted or managed feeding programs (Mader et al., 2002;
Davis et al., 2003) are common techniques used to help mitigate heat stress in feedlot cattle. For an
in-depth review of the aforementioned strategies to mitigate heat stress in cattle, see Mader (2003).
178 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

TABLE 8.1
The Effect of Corn and Feeder Cattle Prices on Economic Losses ($ Per Head)
Associated with a Catastrophic Winter Storm
Cattle Pricea Cornb Price ($ per 25.41 kg)
Item $ per 45.45 kg 2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50
Feed costsc — 91.08 111.79 132.51 153.22 173.94
Yardaged — 20.30 20.30 20.30 20.30 20.30
Intereste 80.00 9.05 9.05 9.05 9.05 9.05
100.00 11.31 11.31 11.31 11.31 11.31
120.00 13.58 13.58 13.58 13.58 13.58
140.00 15.84 15.84 15.84 15.84 15.84
Death lossf 80.00 65.27 67.69 70.12 72.54 74.97
100.00 77.99 80.41 82.84 85.26 87.69
120.00 90.71 93.13 95.56 97.98 100.40
140.00 103.42 105.85 108.27 110.70 113.12
Total costsg 80.00 185.69 208.83 231.98 255.12 278.26
100.00 200.68 223.82 246.96 270.10 293.24
120.00 215.66 238.80 261.94 285.08 308.22
140.00 230.64 253.78 276.92 300.06 323.20

Source: Adapted from Wagner et al., 2008. Professional Animal Scientist. 24: 494–499.
a 403.8 kg pay weight.

b 15% moisture.

c 9.67 kg per day dry matter intake for the 58-day study period and diet dry matter concentration was 70%.

d $0.35 per head daily for the 58-day study period.

e 8% on initial calf value.

f 7% of the steer value at the start of the study period calculated from initial calf value and production costs up

to the start of the study.

g Feed plus yardage, interest, and death loss costs.

PEN DEsiGN
Three very effective methods commonly utilized by feedlot operators to help keep cattle dry during
times of wet, muddy conditions are mounding within pens, pen slope, and concrete pads adjacent
to the feed bunk. Constructing mounds of dirt and dried manure in pens coupled with the appropri-
ate slope of a feedlot pen surface where water can be diverted out of the pen, minimizing standing
water and maximizing pen surface drying, allows cattle to avoid muddy pen surfaces. Furthermore,
it is common practice to have a concrete apron adjacent to the feed bunk, which allows cattle a solid
foundation to stand on while consuming feed.

MANAGEmENT STREssORs
Castration, dehorning, branding, handling, and transportation are common management practices
used in the beef cattle industry. Pain and distress associated with these management techniques are
difficult to quantify and have been the center of much debate regarding animal welfare. Castration
induces physiological stress and alters several physiological and behavioral responses indicative
of pain (Melony, Kent, and Robertson, 1995; Fisher et al., 1996, 1997a,b). However, attempting to
alleviate the stress of castration with local anesthesia or analgesics pre- and post-castration has been
challenging and results have been variable. Ting et al. (2003a,b) reported that systemic analgesia
Animal Welfare 179

with ketoprofen, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, was an effective method for alleviating
acute inflammatory stress associated with castration. Earlier research by Earley and Crowe (2002)
indicated that ketoprofen was superior to local anesthesia with lidocaine in suppressing increases in
plasma cortisol (an acute stress indicator) and decreasing abnormal standing post-castration. Other
researchers have reported similar results (Gonzalez et al., 2010; Stafford et al., 2002). Furthermore,
plasma cortisol response to castration increases as the age of the animal at castration increases
(King et al., 1991). This is most likely due to an increase in soft tissue damage (greater tissue inner-
vation and blood flow) at the time of castration in older compared to younger animals (Ting et al.,
2003a,b; Weissman, 1990; Fisher et al., 1996). It is evident that castration is painful to cattle based
on physiological and behavioral observations reported in the literature. Utilization of analgesics
should be implemented to minimize the pain experienced by castration. Furthermore, if castration
is going to be used as a management tool, it should be performed at the earliest age possible. Future
research should focus on determining the method and duration of analgesics in order to minimize
pain in castrated animals. Possible means of chemical or immunological castration should also be
investigated.
Removing horns from cattle (dehorning) is a management practice to help prevent bruising of
cattle when they are transported together in close quarters, as well as to reduce the risk of injury
to other animals and employees. In general, horns can be removed by disbudding (destroying the
horn-producing cells) at 6 to 8 weeks of age, or by removing established horns. Hot iron and chemi-
cal forms of disbudding are common methods of preventing horns from growing. Once horns are
mature, horn removal is more challenging. Horn buds and the base of mature horns are highly
vascularized and innervated and mature horns are linked to the frontal sinuses. Due to the innerva-
tion, vascularization, and relationship to the sinus, dehorning can be painful and increase the risk of
infection and excessive bleeding. Results of numerous experiments indicate that dehorning causes
an increase in plasma cortisol (Wohlt et al., 1994; McMeekan et al., 1997; McMeekan et al., 1998;
Mellor et al., 2002; Sylvester, et al., 1998; AVMA, 2011). Local anesthesia, analgesics, cauteriza-
tion, and a combination thereof, have been reported to assist with pain management in cattle that
have been disbudded or dehorned. Due to the labor costs and reduced production efficiency, genetic
selection for cattle with no horns (polled) is becoming popular.
Hot iron and freeze branding are common management practices for permanently identifying
cattle. However, as discussed with castration and dehorning, both forms of branding can be painful
as indicated by increased heart rates and plasma epinephrine and cortisol concentrations, which are
indicative of pain (Lay et al., 1992 a,b). Therefore, similar pain abatement strategies as describe pre-
viously should be utilized when branding cattle. Alternatively, other less painful permanent identi-
fication systems could be utilized such as genetic or digital technologies.
Animal handling and transportation can also induce stress in beef cattle. For an extensive review
of this topic, see Grandin (1997). If possible, habituating animals to handling equipment, people,
and routine handling events can help decrease animal fear, which in turn helps to decrease ani-
mal stress. Regardless of acclimatization status to handling, it is imperative that all equipment be
functioning appropriately when animals are being handled. Slipping or falling in a squeeze chute
or on a cattle trailer can be extremely stressful to cattle (Grandin, 1993, 1997, 2001). Removing or
minimizing objects that cattle may find frightening (swinging ropes, shadows, etc.) will also help
decrease animal stress during handling. Furthermore, people handling animals need to be appro-
priately trained in cattle handling techniques, and remain calm and quiet. This will decrease the
likelihood of animals having a negative experience during the handling or transportation event.
Cattle that have a negative experience during handling and transportation (i.e., falling, slipping,
rough handling, etc.) will remember the event and become more stressed during subsequent han-
dling events. If cattle are extensively managed and not handled as frequently as intensively managed
cattle are, it is important that the above-mentioned strategies for minimizing stress be implemented
in conjunction with understanding the fear response described by Grandin (1997).
180 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

THE CHAllENGE
It is apparent that beef producers understand the importance of minimizing stress on beef cattle.
By doing so, production efficiency is enhanced. However, over the last 10 years societal/consumer
concerns for animal well-being and lack of understanding of animal agriculture have increased
exponentially (Rollin, 1990, 2004). Society as a whole has begun to question how food animals are
raised. In doing so, animal welfare has been moved to the forefront of topics that the beef industry
must address. It is no longer satisfactory to consumers to justify beef production practices based
on animal performance—the welfare of each individual animal needs to be vectored into produc-
tion practices. Humane treatment of animals has always been an ingrained social ethic among beef
producers. However, more attention needs to be given to pain management and abatement of envi-
ronmental stressors as they relate to beef cattle production. By implementing these strategies into
production practices and communicating them to the consumer, animal welfare will be improved
and consumer confidence will be enhanced.

REFERENCEs
AVMA. 2011. Backgrounder: Welfare implications of the dehorning and disbudding of cattle. http://www.
avma.org/reference/backgrounders/dehorning-cattle-bgnd.asp
Birkelo, C.P., D.E. Johnson, and H.P. Phetteplace. 1991. Maintenance requirements of beef cattle as affected by
season on different planes of nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 69: 1214–1222.
Birkelo, C.P., and J. Lounsbery. 1992. Effect of straw and newspaper bedding on cold season feedlot perfor-
mance in two housing systems. South Dakota State Univ. Beef Rep. Cattle. 92–11.
Davis, M.S., T.L. Mader, S.M. Holt, and A.M. Parkhurst. 2003. Strategies to reduce feedlot cattle heat stress:
Effects on tympanic temperature. J. Anim. Sci. 81: 649–661.
Earley, B., and M.A. Crow. 2002. Effects of ketoprofen alone or in combination with local anesthesia during
the castration of bull calves on plasma cortisol, immunological, and inflammatory responses. J. Anim.
Sci. 80: 1044–1052.
Fisher, A.D., M.A. Crowe, M.E. Alonso de la Varga, and W.J. Enright. 1996. Effect of castration method and
the provision of local anesthesia on plasma cortisol, scrotal circumference, growth, and feed intake of
bull calves. J. Anim. Sci. 74: 2336–2343.
Fisher, A.D., M.A. Crowe, E.M. O’Nuallain, M.L. Monaghan, J.A. Larkin, P. O’Kiely, and W.J. Enright. 1997a.
Effects of cortisol on in vitro interferon-gamma production, acute-phase proteins, growth, and feed intake
in a calf castration model. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 1041–1047.
Fisher, A.D., M.A. Crowe, E.M. O’Nuallain, M.L. Monaghan, D.J. Prendiville, P. O’Kiely, and W.J. Enright.
1997b. Effects of suppressing cortisol following castration of bull calves on adrenocorticotropic hor-
mone, in vitro interferon-gamma production, leukocytes, acute-phase proteins, growth, and feed intake.
J. Anim. Sci. 75: 1899–1908.
González, L.A., K.S. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, N.A. Caulkett, E. Janzen, T.A. McAllister, E. Fierheller, A.L.
Schaefer, D.B. Haley, J.M. Stookey, and S. Hendrick . 2010. Pain mitigation after band castration of beef
calves and its effects on performance, behavior, Escherichia coli, and salivary cortisol. J. Anim. Sci. 88:
802–810.
Grandin, T. 1993. Teaching principles of behavior and equipment design for handling livestock. J. Anim. Sci.
71: 1065–1070.
Grandin, T. 1997. Assessment of stress during handling and transport. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 249–257.
Grandin, T. 2001. Livestock-handling quality assurance. J. Anim. Sci. 79: E239–E248.
Hahn, G.L., and T.L. Mader. 1997. Heat waves in relation to thermoregulation, feeding behavior, and mor-
tality of feedlot cattle. Proc. 5th Int. Livest. Environ. Symp., Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St Joseph, MI. pp.
563–571.
King, B.D., R.D.H. Cohen, C.L. Guenther, and E.D. Janzen. 1991. The effect of age and method of castration
on plasma cortisol in beef calves. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 71: 257–263.
Lay, D.C., Jr., T.H. Friend, C.L. Bowers, K.K. Grissom, and O.C. Jenkins. 1992a. A comparative physi-
ological and behavioral study of freeze and hot-iron branding using dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 70:
1121–1125.
Lay, D.C., Jr., T.H. Friend, R.D. Randel, C.L. Bowers, K.K. Grissom, and O.C. Jenkins. 1992b. Behavioral and
physiological effects of freeze or hot-iron branding on crossbred cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 70: 330–336.
Animal Welfare 181

Mader, T. L., J.M. Dahlquist, G.L. Hahn, and J.B. Gaughan. 1999. Shade and wind barrier effects on summer-
time feedlot cattle performance. J. Anim. Sci. 77: 2065–2072.
Mader, T. L., S.M. Holt, G.L. Hahn, M.S. Davis, and D.E. Spiers. 2002. Feeding strategies for managing heat
load in feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 2373–2382.
Mader, T.L. 2003. Environmental stress in confined beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 81: E110–119E.
McMeekan, C.M., D.J. Mellor, K.J. Stafford, R.A. Bruce, R.N. Ward, and N.G. Gregory. 1997. Effects of shal-
low scoop and deep scoop dehorning on plasma cortisol concentrations in calves. NZ Vet. J. 45: 72–74.
McMeekan, C.M., K.J. Stafford, D.J. Mellor, R.A. Bruce, R.N. Ward, and N.G. Gregory. 1998. Effects of
regional analgesia and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesic on the acute cortisol response to
dehorning calves. Res Vet Sci. 64: 147–150.
Mellor, D.J., K.J. Stafford, S.E. Lowe, N.G., Gregory, R.A. Bruce, and R.N. Ward. 2002. A comparison of
catecholamine and cortisol responses of young lambs and calves to painful husbandry procedures. Aust.
Vet. J. 80: 228–233.
Melony, V., J.E. Kent, and I.S. Robertson. 1995. Assessment of acute and chronic pain after different methods
of castration of calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 46: 33–48.
Rollin, B.E. 1990. Animal welfare, animal rights and agriculture. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 3456–3461.
Rollin, B.E. 2004. Annual meeting keynote address: Animal agriculture and emerging social ethics for animals.
J. Anim. Sci. 82: 955–964.
Selye, H. 1973. The evolution of the stress concept. Amer. Sci. 61: 692–699.
Stafford, K., D. Mellor, S. Todd, R. Bruce, and R. Ward. 2002. Effects of local anesthesia or local anesthesia
plus a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug on the acute cortisol response of calves to five different
methods of castration. Res. Vet. Sci. 73: 61–70.
Sylvester, S.P., K.J. Stafford, D.J. Mellor, R.A. Bruce, and R.N. Ward. 1998. Acute cortisol responses of calves
to four methods of dehorning by amputation. Australian Vet. J. 76: 123–126.
Ting, T.L., B. Earley, and M.A. Crowe. 2003a. Effect of repeated ketoprofen administration during surgical
castration of bulls on cortisol, immunological function, feed intake, growth, and behavior. J. Anim. Sci.
81: 1253–1264.
Ting, T.L., B. Earley, J.M.L. Hughes, and M.A. Crowe. 2003b. Effect of ketoprofen, lidocaine, local anesthesia,
and combined xylazine and lidocaine caudal epidural anesthesia during castration of beef cattle on stress
responses, immunity, growth, and behavior. J. Anim. Sci. 81: 1281–1293.
Wagner, J.J., P.T. Grubb, and T.E. Engle. 2008. Case study: The effects of severe winter weather on net energy
for maintenance required by yearling steers. Prof. Anim. Sci. 24: 1–6.
Weissman, C. 1990. The metabolic response to stress. An overview and update. Anaesthesiology. 73:
308–327.
Wieckert, D.A. 1970. Social behavior in farm animals. J. Anim. Sci. 32: 1274–1277.
Wohlt, J.E., M.E. Allyn, P.K. Zajac, and L.S. Katz. 1994. Cortisol increases in plasma of Holstein heifer calves
from handling and method of electrical dehorning. J. Dairy Sci. 77: 3725–3729.
Young, B.A. 1981. Cold stress as it affects animal production. J. Anim. Sci. 52: 154–163.
Section III
Sustainable Plant and Animal
Agriculture for Animal Welfare
 9 Symbiosis of Plants,
Animals, and Microbes
James Wells and Vincent Varel

CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 185
Life on Earth................................................................................................................................... 186
Parasitism and Pathogenicity.......................................................................................................... 186
Insects and Parasitism with Plants and Animals........................................................................ 187
Microbes and Parasitism/Pathogenicity with Plants and Animals............................................. 188
Plant Microbial Parasites and Pathogens............................................................................... 188
Animal Microbial Parasites and Pathogens........................................................................... 188
Animals and Microsporidia................................................................................................... 189
Animals and Zoonotic Bacterial Pathogens.......................................................................... 189
Commensalism and Mutualism...................................................................................................... 189
Commensalism and Mutualism among Plants and Animals...................................................... 190
Microbes and Mutualism/Commensalism with Plants............................................................... 191
Nitrogen Assimilation........................................................................................................... 191
Arbuscular Mycorrhiza.......................................................................................................... 192
Additional Plant/Microbe Interactions.................................................................................. 192
Pathogen Suppression............................................................................................................ 193
Fungal Endophytes and Plants.............................................................................................. 193
Modern Agriculture and Symbiosis with Plants.................................................................... 193
Microbes and Mutualism/Commensalism with Animals........................................................... 194
Gastrointestinal Tracts of Production Animals...................................................................... 194
Pregastric Fermentation and the Ruminant........................................................................... 198
Symbiosis and Evolution in Animals.........................................................................................200
Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................................. 201
References.......................................................................................................................................202

INTRODUCTION
A diversity of plants, animals, and microbes on Earth abounds due to evolution, climate, competition,
and symbiosis. Single-cell species such as microorganisms are assumed to have evolved initially. Over
time, plants and animals established and flourished. As each new kingdom of life came about, the
ecosystem on Earth became more complex and the bionic components became more interactive.
Symbiosis, in a broad definition, is “the living together in an intimate association of two or more dis-
similar organisms.” Symbiosis can result in a relationship in which both organisms benefit. Nitrogen
fixation by legumes is a consequence of microbes that fix nitrogen and plants that supply simple
carbons. Plants and fungi have established a cooperation in which the plant provides nutrients and
the fungi provide alkaloids to deter predation and allow for greater drought tolerance. More gener-
ally, plants and herbivores have essentially co-evolved such that the action of herbivores on plants
can lead to greater diversity and dispersion of seed. Complex cellulose degradation of plant material

185
186 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

by herbivores is accomplished by specialized bacteria in gastrointestinal compartments that are

optimally maintained by each host animal for bacterial growth. Within the mammalian digestive
tract, commensal microorganisms can provide energy, amino acids, and vitamins for the host, and
provide protection against parasitic microorganisms. This chapter focuses on environmental sus-
tainability of the many symbiotic relationships among plants, animals, and microbes that enhance
our global food production.

LIFE ON EARTH
Life on Earth is complex and interactive, with organisms forming populations, which in turn form
communities, or ecosystems, both locally and globally. The ecology is defined by the interactions
between species and their composition within that system that drives natural selection, evolution, and
genetic composition. The fitness for survival of an organism in any ecosystem is not dependent solely
upon the species, but includes the interactions of other organisms with that species. Interactions
between and among species within an ecosystem can be simple or complex, competitive or ben-
eficial, predatory or symbiotic. Within a similar order, such as plants or animals, competition for
resources can select for the better-fit species under one set of conditions, whereas predation results
in one species consuming another.
Humans, through the development of agriculture, have identified and exploited different species
for food production. Consequently, our desire for better production has often required control of the
ecosystem. More importantly, the usefulness of a particular plant or animal species is often depen-
dent on interactions with other species, including plant, animal, or microbial organisms. In agricul-
ture, humans control competitive and predatory interactions to minimize the impact of competitive
or predatory species on the agricultural species of interest. In contrast, symbiotic relationships are
often encouraged and many production traits of interest are the result of symbiotic interactions.
Symbiosis is defined as two different species “living together.” These close interactions between
two species are often long-term and, for the most part, beneficial to one or more of the symbionts.
There are numerous examples of symbiosis in agriculture. Agriculture in a broad sense involves
a symbiotic relationship between humans and plants or animals. Humans plant, fertilize, control
weeds and pests, and protect crops. Humans also nurture, feed, and protect livestock. The crops and
livestock benefit from human interaction by being more productive and, in turn, they are utilized
for food, clothing, shelter, and other human needs. Of more importance are symbioses, particularly
interactions of lower order organisms, for example, microorganisms, which can impart health or
disease in higher organisms.

PARASITISM AND PATHOGENICITY

Symbiotic relationships can be further defined or characterized by the type and level of interac-
tion (see Figure 9.1). Parasitism describes a system in which one species benefits at the expense of
another over time. Pathogenic relationships are often acute interactions in which one species spe-
cifically infects and benefits at the expense, and even death, of another. Commensalism describes
a system in which one species benefits, but not at the expense of the other. Mutualism describes a
system in which both species benefit. Within these types of symbiotic interactions, the level of inter-
action can be close contact between the symbionts (ectosymbiosis or exosymbiosis) or it can include
one symbiont living inside the other (endosymbiosis).
Exploitation of a host can result in symbiosis that is parasitic in nature, and in production agri-
culture, these relationships can be costly. In endosymbiotic interactions, immature insects and para-
sitic microbes, such as protozoa or bacteria, can reside in a host for periods of time and compete
for nutrients. In exosymbiotic instances, parasites, such as pests or insects, can persistently remove
nutrients from the host. Regardless of the level of interaction, the loss of nutrients often results in
lower yields of crops or reduced performance by the animal. When the parasitic relationship results
Symbiosis of Plants, Animals, and Microbes 187

Death to host

Pathogenic

Commensal

Parasitic Mutualistic

Cost to host Benefit to host

FIGURE 9.1 Trophic relationship between host and symbiont. Each corner of the triangle represents the key
interactions, with the peak denoting a necrotrophic relationship that results in host death and the base denoting
biotrophic relationships that require survival of the host.

in death of the host, the interaction is necrotrophic, whereas in a relationship that requires survival
of the host, the interaction is biotrophic. The parasitic and pathogenic relationships are costly to
agriculture and future efforts will be needed to control these relationships while not affecting the
environment negatively.

INsECTs AND PARAsiTism wiTH PlANTs AND ANimAls

Plants account for most of the living biomass on Earth, and parasites, insects in particular, have
evolved closely with plant hosts (Rosomer and Stoffolano, 1997). Phytophagous (“plant eating” or
herbivores) insects (anthropods) are the most abundant insects and include locusts, which are not
selective and will consume most green plants (polyphagous), whereas the western corn rootworm is
selective in consuming one species or genus (monophagous). Most plant parasites target a variety of
plants (oligotrophic). Phytophagous insects may be specific in the anatomy of plant tissue that is tar-
geted, and every plant tissue or anatomical part is susceptible to one or more phytophagous insects.
These insect herbivores play a key role in the evolution of plant structure and response to herbivory,
or being eaten (Stout, Thaler, and Thomma, 2006). Plants signal injury via two main pathways. One
pathway is a systemically acquired response utilizing salicylic acid in responses to acute structural
damage to elicit antimicrobial release and control microbial entry, and to deter insect attack. The
second pathway is an induced resistance response utilizing jasmonic acid in response to chronic
herbivory to deter the insect or hinder its development or reproduction. In contrast to the phytopha-
gous insects, predatory insects such as spiders prey on other insects, particularly the phytophagous
insects, and they can be beneficial to agriculture. Even the lowly household pest, the Asian cock-
roach, can be beneficial because it preys on bollworm and armyworm pests of agricultural crops.
Zoophagous insects extract nutrients from a living animal host and represent a broad group of
parasitic insects, including the predatory insects that feed on other insects (Rosomer and Stoffolano,
1997). Most zoophagous insects that feed on vertebrate animals are biotrophic and live on the
external surface (exoparasitic). Among animals common to production agriculture, suckling lice
(Anoplura), chewing lice (Mallophaga), flies and mosquitoes (Diptera), ticks (Ixodidea), and
fleas (Siphonaptera) are common parasitic insects and most are blood feeders (hematophagous).
Zoophagous insects have adapted a variety of host interactions. Lice can spend their entire lifecycle
on a single host and are typically species specific. Host-specific zoophagous insects have often
188 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

co-evolved with the host species and in some cases have evolved special structures for feeding on
the host. Other zoophagous insects, such as fleas, may only live on the host for a short period of their
lifecycle. Free living zoophagous insects, such as mosquitoes and flies, may only utilize the mam-
malian host for meals and not live on the host per se. Individually, the zoophagous insect may be
insignificant relative to the much larger mass of the host, but collectively, these parasites can carry
disease and in large numbers over extended periods can be a nutrient drain to the host. Identifying
and exploiting predatory insects that target blood-feeding zoophagous insects would reduce the
therapeutic use of pesticides for pest control in animal agriculture, but no significant predatory
insect has been identified.

MiCRObEs AND PARAsiTism/PATHOGENiCiTY wiTH PlANTs AND ANimAls

Parasitism, in its strictest definition, describes an interaction of one organism surviving at the
expense of the other. However, when microbes are involved, the level of interaction is less clear and
the definition less strict. To some extent, the definition of a parasite may depend on the point of view
and the depth of understanding of the symbiosis. In biotrophic parasitism, what one may perceive as
one organism surviving at the expense of the other may, in reality, be an interaction in which both
organisms benefit, but the full symbiosis is not known. In addition, some interactions may be mutu-
alistic (both organisms benefit) at certain times, but parasitic at other times. In contrast, pathogenic
organisms represent examples of necrotrophic parasitism, but not all pathogenic microbes cause
death of the host. Regardless, pathogen interaction represents greater loss to the host and needs to
be considered differently than a parasitic interaction. Among plants and animals, particularly those
of agricultural importance, a number of parasitic and pathogenic microbes are important relative to
disease and host health, but a thorough discussion is beyond the scope of this chapter. A few inter-
actions of economic importance will be discussed. A further note regarding animals: A number
of pathogens may survive and multiply in one host as a commensal and not cause disease, but can
cause disease or death in another host. Understanding these zoonotic pathogens is important not
only to animal health, but also to providing a safe food and water supply to humans.

Plant Microbial Parasites and Pathogens

Plants are the most abundant form of terrestrial life and are plagued by numerous opportunistic
organisms colonizing the leaves, stems, and roots. Fungi are associated with spotting, rusting, wilt-
ing, and rotting of plants. Fungi in the phylum of Ascomycota (commonly called Ascomycetes) are
a diverse group known for a sac structure and include important decomposers in nature and sources
for important medicinal uses. Species associated with plant disease include Aspergillus, Fusarium,
Thielaviopsis, Uncinula, and Verticillium. Fungi in the phylum of Basidiomycota (commonly called
Basidiomycetes) are a diverse group known for a “club” or “fruiting” structure, and include plant
disease-causing species of Rhizoctonia, Phakospora, and Puccinia. Oomycetes are small eukary-
otic organisms, or protists, that are fungal-like, include species of Pythium and Phytophthora, and
are associated with rusts, rots, and blights. Numerous bacteria cause diseases in plants, but species
belonging to Agrobacterium, Burkholderia, Clavibacter, Erwinia, Phytoplasma, Pseudomonas,
Spiroplasma, and Xanthomonas can cause significant damage or death to plants. Disruption of
plant colonization is important for control of many diseases caused by microbes.

Animal Microbial Parasites and Pathogens

Animals are susceptible to a number of microbes that colonize and alter the health of the host.
Animals represent nutrient-dense targets for opportunistic organisms, and bacteria, protozoa, fungi,
protists (protozoa), and helminths (parasitic worms) have adapted opportunistic lifestyles that target
animals. Primary targets include the pulmonary and digestive systems, but invasive microbes can
penetrate the skin where lesions or abrasions have occurred. Among animals of agricultural impor-
tance, vaccinations and antibiotics have reduced the incidence of parasites and pathogens. However,
Symbiosis of Plants, Animals, and Microbes 189

concern regarding the use of antibiotics in animals and the potential consequences of antibiotic
resistance reducing antibiotic effectiveness in humans has led to mandated reductions in antibiotic
use in animal agriculture. Alternatives to antibiotics include prebiotics (dietary component that
alters microbial composition) and probiotics (microbial additive to alter microbial composition) in
animal diets. Microbial interactions, specifically in the intestinal tract, that may reduce parasites
and pathogens are discussed next.

Animals and Microsporidia

Microsporidia are unicellular organisms and intracellular parasites found in all major animal groups
(Williams, 2009). Microsporidia are a common parasite in insects and fish, and a particular problem
for farm-raised fish. Infection is associated with chronic, persistent illness and the parasite, although
not directly lethal, has been shown to result in 30% mortality in farmed salmon. In most cases, the
host exhibits reduced weight, vigor, and fertility. In addition to fertility issues, transmission can be
vertical to the offspring, particularly in insect and crustacean hosts, and this parasite can change the
sex of hosts via suppression of androgenic gland development.
These organisms represent a large group of microbes that are related to fungi phylogenetically,
but they are atypical fungi in cell structure. Formerly thought of as protists and called microspora,
these eukaryotic organisms lack mitochondria (they have mitosomes), are non-motile, and form
spores with thick cell walls that can survive outside the hosts for years. Shifts in pH can prime the
spores to germinate and inject the microsporidia into the host cell, which is typically a mucosal epi-
thelial cell. Once colonized in the host, the parasite can exploit the host cell for nutrients and energy.
Exploitation unique to microsporidia is the gathering of host cell mitochondria and accumulating
the mitochondrial ATP, which may have allowed this eukaryotic organism to shed its endogenous
mitochondria long ago.

Animals and Zoonotic Bacterial Pathogens

Zoonotic pathogens are transmissible between animals and humans (Wells and Varel, 2005). Plants
may harbor pathogens harmful to humans, but most originate from animal sources. In animals,
a variety of zoonotic pathogens has been observed, and in many cases, the pathogen may not be
harmful to the animal, but may cause much harm to infected humans. Species of Salmonella,
Campylobacter, Enterococcus, Escherichia, and Yersinia are excreted by animals and are potential
pathogens to humans.
Many of these human-pathogenic bacteria can reside in production animals with little or no obvi-
ous signs of disease. In particular, Escherichia coli O157:H7 can reside in the bovine gastrointesti-
nal tract of some animals for weeks at numbers greater than 100,000 organisms per gram feces, but
less than 10 organisms can cause severe gastroenteritis, and even death, in humans. In the case of E.
coli O157:H7, the zoonotic pathogen does not cause disease and provides little benefit to the animal
carrier, but does compete for nutrients. In contrast, Salmonella are disease-causing organisms in
humans and production animals, and some Salmonella strains have evolved adaptations for differ-
ent hosts. In recent years, Salmonella serotypes Typhimurium, Enteritidis, Newport, and Heidelberg
account for nearly 50% of the serotypes found in humans, and most likely originate from animal
sources. Salmonella serotype Typhimurium is most often found in cattle and swine; Heidelberg and
Enteritidis are found in chickens; and Newport is most often found in cattle. Controlling pathogen
incidence and load in animal reservoirs is important for the safety of the environment, water, and
human food, and understanding how the host diet or its gastrointestinal ecology may deter coloniza-
tion of these pathogens is important for sustainable agriculture.

COMMENSALISM AND MUTUALISM

Typically, symbiosis is thought of as interactions that impart no negative effect to either symbiont,
and these interactions can be described as commensal or mutual. These interactions are beneficial
190 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

to one (commensalism) or both (mutualism) species. In agriculture, we promote or select for these
types of interactions that benefit the crop or animal. Although strictly defined as commensal or
mutual, these symbiotic interactions are not clearly distinct, and the symbiotic relationship can have
shades of both types of symbiotic interactions. In some interactions, the benefit to one species is
obvious whereas the benefit to both species may not be as clear. The sustainability of agriculture
for future generations is highly dependent on identifying and maximizing commensal and mutual
relationships that improve agricultural production while minimizing the environmental footprint.

COmmENsAlism AND MUTUAlism AmONG PlANTs AND ANimAls

Plants represent a significant amount of biomass on Earth, and are subject to a variety of interac-
tions. As mentioned previously, phytophagous insects target plants and represent a parasitic type
of interaction. However, plants attract and utilize insects, such as bees and butterflies, for pollina-
tion and these interactions distribute plant genetic material in the form of pollen. Ants also play an
important mutualistic role with dispersion of plant seeds (myrmecochory) in the terrestrial ecosys-
tem, particularly for flowering plants.
Animals have evolved to exploit plants as well, and in a balanced ecosystem, this interaction
can be viewed as commensal to animals, if not possibly mutual to both plant and animal. Animals
differ in their dietary adaptations. Carnivores are predominantly meat eaters and have little capac-
ity to utilize plant material, but omnivores, which also cannot digest plant material, may feed on
fruiting bodies of plants and, consequently, distribute seeds in the stool. Herbivores in contrast, and
ruminants in particular, have developed the capacity to digest and utilize plant biomass for their
own nutrient needs. These latter adaptations involve microbial symbioses, to be discussed later, but
in relation to the plant, they can be commensal in nature.
Mammalian herbivores differ in their grazing strategies, and thus, can differ in how they affect
or benefit the plant or forage consumed (Asner et al., 2009; Augustine and McNaughton, 2004;
Bailey, 2005; Kant and Baldwin, 2007; Parker, Burkepile, and Hay, 2006; Rinella and Hileman,
2009). In feeding studies, herbivores tend to selectively consume exotic (non-native) plants over the
native plants from their environment. In a larger ecosystem, native herbivores can suppress invasive
plants by selectively consuming more of the exotic plants. This action will result in retardation
of invasive exotic plants. In contrast, exotic (non-native) herbivores are more likely to selectively
graze the native (but exotic to them) plants. This selection can result in greater abundance and over-
population of exotic plants. In ecosystems that are more complex, such as the African savannas,
the combination of native browsers and bulk-feeders retards shrub and woody plant encroachment
onto rangelands used for agricultural grazing. On rangelands in the western United States, goats
and sheep can improve grasslands production by selectively consuming pines, junipers, and forbs
(herbaceous flowering plants) that invade these grazing areas.
The negative implications of animals on plants are widely recognized. Animal movements can
trample plants and grazing by herbivores can result in plant injury and loss of the plants’ reproduc-
tive organs. However, omnivores and mammalian herbivores can benefit plants by dispersing seeds
(Pakeman, Digneffe, and Small, 2002). Some plants have evolved structures such as hooks to facili-
tate attachment to animals for dispersion by exozoochory, or transport outside the animal, whereas
other plants have evolved to utilize endozoochory, or transport by animal ingestion. Fruit-bearing
plants often have fleshy fruit to attract a variety of birds and mammals that consume ( frugivory),
transport, and defecate the seeds, a process known as direct endozoochory. Likewise, mammalian
herbivores graze and consume plants (herbivory) including the seeds of those plants, and trans-
port those seeds until defecated, a process known as indirect endozoochory. The movement of the
seed through the digestive tract may damage the seed and prevent germination, but the nutrient-
rich environment is likely more conducive to germination and growth for those seeds that survive.
Grasses and plants, particularly annuals, may be widely distributed in dung from herbivores, but
plant species with smaller seeds typical of many pasture weeds are better adapted to surviving the
Symbiosis of Plants, Animals, and Microbes 191

gastrointestinal tract. Whether or not seeds are dispersed by an animal, hoof action by animals
disrupts the soil surface and can serve to bury seeds for later germination. In agriculture, properly
managing forage lands and foraging animals will minimize the environmental impact of animal
agriculture and sustain a productive system.

MiCRObEs AND MUTUAlism/COmmENsAlism wiTH PlANTs

In horticulture, combating plant diseases that arise from microbial infections has been the plant/
microbial interaction of greatest interest. In recent years, the diversity and economic importance
of mutualistic interactions between plants and microbes have been recognized, but with the excep-
tion of nitrogen fixation, these interactions have not been as well studied. In plants, the rhizosphere
describes the soil around the plant roots and this ecosystem represents a community of bacteria,
fungi, protozoa, and nematodes that interact with each other and the plant roots (Barea et al., 2005;
Berg and Smalla, 2009; Mocali and Benedetti, 2010). The biotic factors that affect the community
structure include plant species and cultivar, stage of plant development and health, and animal
activity. Abiotic factors include climate, geography, soil type, and amendments made because of
human activities (e.g., pesticides, fungicides, or herbicides). The plant may control the predominant
interactions via exudates from the roots, which can serve as signals for beneficial bacteria. Exudates
include ions, oxygen, water, mucilage, and carbon compounds. The carbon excreted by roots can be
variable, but can account for more than 25% of the carbon fixed by the plant. Plants can benefit from
microbial interactions due to the release of phytohormones, availability of nutrients, micronutrients,
and minerals, increased tolerance to stress, and biocontrol of pathogens. Soil-specific inhibition of
the plant pathogens Fusarium, Gaeumannomyces, Rhizoctonia, Pythium, and Phytophthora is in
part due to indigenous rhizosphere microbes.

Nitrogen Assimilation
Carbon and nitrogen are the building blocks of life on Earth. Plants use photosynthesis to transform
light energy and carbon dioxide into carbon building blocks. However, plants, like all other eukary-
otes, cannot directly assimilate nitrogen, and require nitrogen in the form of nitrates or ammonia
for nitrogen assimilation. The biological ability to fix nitrogen to ammonia is limited to prokaryotes
that express nitrogenase enzymes (Barea et al., 2005; Hurek and Reinhold-Hurek, 2003; Lindström
et al., 2010). Numerous free-living bacteria in the soil (e.g., Azobacter, Clostridium, Klebsiella, and
Rhodospirillum) have developed abilities to fix nitrogen, which can diffuse to surrounding plants.
A variety of plants has evolved extracellular symbiotic (epiphytic) relationships with nitrogen-fixing
cyanobacteria, most of which involve heterocysts, or cavities formed in the leaf, to house the bac-
teria (e.g., Anabeana azollae and the waterfern Azolla). A few flowering woody shrubs and trees
have adapted intracellular symbiotic (endophytic) strategies with the filamentous antinomycete
Frankia in large root nodules, but this interaction is limited to some species of angiosperms in the
plant kingdom. More agriculturally important plants in the legume family (Fabaceae) have widely
evolved symbiotic relationships to exploit microorganisms. In general, these plants have specialized
nodules in their roots where atmospheric nitrogen is fixed and assimilated by a variety of rhizobia
bacteria. Rhizobia are Gram-negative rod-shaped bacteria and the nitrogen-fixing species are dis-
tributed among Azorhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, Mesorhizobium, and Rhizobium groups.
The symbiosis with legumes and rhizobia occurs in specialized root tissue called nodules. The
development of this symbiosis begins with plants secreting an exudate from the root hairs that
chemotactically attracts the rhizobia. The rhizobia colonize and multiply on the root hair. Flavonoids
produced by the plant induce the nodulation (nod) genes in the rhizobia to produce Nod factors,
which result in a sequential series of plant host reactions that result in internalization of the bacteria
and nodule development. Specificity between legume species and bacterial species is determined by
modifications to the Nod factors that are encoded by host-specific nodulation genes. Nitrogen fixa-
tion genes (nif and fix) encoded by the bacteria are triggered and the highly conserved nitrogenase
192 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

and accessory proteins are produced. The reduction of nitrogen to ammonia is energy intensive
(requiring 16 mole ATP per 1 mole NH3 produced). The rhizobia require readily available oxygen
for catabolism, but the nodules have low oxygen content. To compensate, the host plant produces
leghemoglobin to deliver oxygen to the rhizobia. This symbiosis can account for more than 50% of
all biologically fixed nitrogen in agriculture, and modern cropping systems implementing a legume
in rotation can derive significant savings in nitrogen fertilizer applications.
The ability to fix nitrogen in agricultural crops may not be limited solely to legumes and their
mutualistic bacteria (Bhattacharjee, Singh, and Mukhopadhyay, 2008; Hurek and Reinhold-Hurek,
2003; Steenhoudt and Vanderleyden, 2000). The most important agricultural crops are grasses
(family Poaceae) and recent evidence suggests that bacterial species belonging to Azospirillum,
Acetobacter, Herbaspirillum, and Azoarcus may form mutualistic relationships with some of these
plants. Mutualistic relationships between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and grasses may be concentrated
in the tropic regions, and rice is one agricultural crop that may benefit from endophytic bacteria
that can fix nitrogen. Some sugar cane varieties in Brazil and Kaller grass common to saline soils
in south-central Asia appear to assimilate most of their nitrogen from nitrogen-fixing endophytes,
such as Azoarcus spp. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria in grasses may be epiphytic or endophytic. Unlike
legumes, the bacterial endophytes in the grasses are not housed in specialized structures, but are
free-living in the plants’ extracellular spaces. In the case of Azospirillum, the bacteria first swarm
and attach to the root surface and secrete polysaccharides, essentially anchoring the bacteria to the
root in a biofilm. Not all Azospirillum can internalize, but as noted with Azoarcus spp., cellulolytic
enzymes appear to aid in their internalization into the plant root.

Arbuscular Mycorrhiza
Fungal-plant mutualistic interactions in the rhizosphere represent a diversity of interactions by a
group of fungal taxa and over 90% of plant species (Bonfante and Genre, 2010). Interactions with
trees account for the bulk of the variety of interactions with fungi, utilizing ectomycorrhizal mecha-
nisms in the root hair in which the fungal mycelium are extracellular. Most vascular plants have
evolved endosymbiotic interactions with arbuscular mycorrhiza, a common fungus in soil. This
relationship appears to have occurred early in the development of land plants and represents the
most widespread type of symbiosis in nature. Members of the fungi phylum Glomeromycota are
part of the soil matrix, and their hyphae can infect the root hair and form arbuscule structures
(endomycorrhizobial) in the plant root cells to exchange nutrients. Without the roots of plants, these
microorganisms would be unable to complete their lifecycle and they would die. These fungi benefit
the host plant by providing additional phosphorus, but can also provide additional micronutrients
and water due to the increased surface area of the filamentous mycorrhiza hyphae widely distributed
through the soil, whereas the plant can provide the fungi with carbon, often the sole source of car-
bon, for the arbuscular mycorrhiza. Disruption of the rhizosphere, or the soil surrounding the plant
root system, can disrupt the mycorrhiza hyphal network and impede the symbiosis-based develop-
ment. In particular, tillage, fungicides, and application of phosphorus fertilizers are modern prac-
tices that negate the potential benefits of arbuscular mycorrhiza by disrupting fungal growth and
minimizing infection of the host plant. In contrast, this symbiosis could be managed and exploited
by farming systems where inputs are minimal, such as organic farms, to improve plant growth and
crop yields.

Additional Plant/Microbe Interactions

Understanding of the plant/microbial interactions in the rhizosphere is slowly increasing as
research in sustainable agricultural systems matures and newer technologies come online
(Newton et al., 2010). Varieties of wheat may selectively support the growth of beneficial bacte-
ria, such as Pseudomonas species, which in turn may make minerals and nutrients more avail-
able to the plant roots and suppress plant pathogens. Consequently, subsequent wheat varieties
of different genotypes may not perform as well in the same field if different rhizosphere ecology
Symbiosis of Plants, Animals, and Microbes 193

is needed. In particular, it has been noted that older wheat cultivars appear to be colonized by
a variety of rhizobacteria and more recently developed cultivars are associated with members
of Proteobacteria, such as Pseudomonas. Mutualistic interactions for production crops such as
maize, grasses, barley, and oat cultivars may include microbes Agrobacterium sp., Bacillus sp.,
Burkholderia sp., Pseudomonas sp., Paenibacillus sp., and Streptomyces sp., but additional enrich-
ments for members of the rhizosphere community are likely to exist. Plant root exudates could
play a determining role in selecting mutualistic microorganisms, but microbes have to signal back
to the plant to initiate colonization. In general, motile soil bacteria, such as Pseudomonas strains,
appear to be predominant because motility offers a competitive advantage in colonizing the plant
and establishing the symbiosis.

Pathogen Suppression
The identification and potential for mutualism between plants and microbes to be exploited in pro-
duction agriculture has yet to be fully determined. Research to identify beneficial bacteria and fungi
will be difficult, but the rewards could be invaluable (Newton et al., 2010). In particular, suppression
of plant pathogens by commensal or mutualistic microbes in the rhizosphere is a viable opportu-
nity. Biocontrol by bacteria, such as Pseudomonas, Agrobacterium, Bacillus, Streptomyces, and
Burkholderia strains, or by non-pathogenic fungi, such as Trichoderma, Pythium, and Fusarium,
against plant pathogens may be a useful preventative system to control plant pathogens or reduce
the damage inflicted by the pathogen. Numerous mechanisms may explain the antagonisms, and in
nature, more than one may be involved. Putative mechanisms may involve competitive exclusion for
colonization sites, stimulation of plant defense systems, niche nutrient competition and depletion (in
particular, iron sequestering), inhibition via antimicrobials, degradation of virulence factors, and
parasitism.

Fungal Endophytes and Plants

Most of the mutalistic microbes described in the previous sections are endophytes (intracellular in
the plant) found in the rhizosphere where they may provide nutrients or prevent microbial pathogens.
In the stem and leaf, which are primordial (aerial or phyllosphere) portions of the grasses (fam-
ily Poaceae), symbiotic relationships with fungi (family Clavicipitaceae) have evolved (Schardl,
Leuchtmann, and Spiering, 2004). In numerous examples with endophyte fungi, the specific fungal
strain is transmitted with the seed from the host plant. Many of these relationships are commensal
or mutualistic, and in the latter case, the fungal endophyte enhances root development, drought tol-
erance, and resistance to herbivory by insects and animals. Alkaloids, including lolines, peramine,
indolediterpenes, and ergotamines, produced by the endophyte fungi can possess antimicrobial
activities that reduce pathogen colonization and can be toxic to insect pests that may forage the
host plant. The indolediterpenes and ergotamines can also be a problem for foraging livestock and
have been implicated in toxicities observed with ryegrass and tall fescue. In these cases, the mutu-
alistic relationship that benefits plant growth and fitness has become a costly problem to grazing
livestock.

Modern Agriculture and Symbiosis with Plants

Historically, consideration of mutualistic microbes has played little role in crop production.
However, as the understanding of the mutualism grows, the selection of mutualistic relationships
with microbes will likely expand. Understanding plant physiology and the function and role of
R-genes (which encode proteins for disease-resistance), immune peptides and proteins, flavonoids,
and other microbial effectors against parasites, pathogens, and mutualistic microbes, as well as
the mechanisms by which the symbiotic microbes control plant defenses, will provide the founda-
tion for proper selection of appropriate mutualistic benefactors. However, as noted with endophyte
fungi, the implications for foraging animals where the plant host may be used for grazing livestock
must also be considered when selecting mutualistic partners.
194 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

MiCRObEs AND MUTUAlism/COmmENsAlism wiTH ANimAls

Microbes are ubiquitous in nature, but the animal has provided the microbe with the most opportu-
nity. Pathogenic or parasitic microbes, as discussed previously, have evolved to take advantage of an
animal host, but a greater level of interaction has evolved between microbes and animals in which
both organisms benefit to some degree. In mammals, it is widely recognized that microbes play a
role in digestion, but mutualistic and commensal relationships are known even in insects. Termites
harbor symbiotic protozoa and other cellulolytic microbes to digest wood cellulose; leafcutter ants
nurture a fungus to digest freshly cut leaves; and even the plant parasitic aphid has co-evolved with
a bacterium (Buchnera aphidicola) that provides the sap-sucking aphid host a source of amino acids
(Degnan et al., 2010). Of greater interest with the aphid is the propensity to utilize other bacterial
strains to manipulate sex ratios and protect against natural enemies, such as wasps and fungal para-
sites. In these examples, mutualism with microbes has provided a competitive advantage to parasitic
organisms that can be damaging to agriculture.

Gastrointestinal Tracts of Production Animals

The gastrointestinal tract (GIT) begins at the mouth and ends at the anus. Animals ingest and digest
food for energy and growth, and the gastrointestinal tract provides a system for the consumption,
mastication, digestion, and absorption of nutrients to fuel these needs. The gastrointestinal system
can vary from species to species of animals, particularly in the upper GIT (oral cavity to stomach).
Compartmentalizations of the esophagus and stomach have allowed dietary specialization in some
animals (pregastric digestion and fermentation, see Table 9.1). The lower GIT can also vary in size,
but common to most animals are the small intestine, large intestine, and colon. These regions of

TABLE 9.1
Relationships between Dietary Strategy for Mammalian Host and Microbiota Types
Herbivores
Foregut Fermenters Hindgut Fermenters Omnivore Carnivore Microbiota Type
Cow, sheep, and Type 1: Foregut fermenters,
giraffe such as ruminants, that
consume forage materials
Horse and rhinoceros Type 2: Hindgut fermenters
that consume forage
materials
Columbine monkey Gorilla and orangutan Type 3: Pseudo-ruminant
and hindgut fermenters,
includes foliovores and
omnivores
Chimpanzee, human, Type 4: Simple stomached
baboon, spider mammals, includes
monkey, and lemur omnivores and frugivores
Giant panda and red Brown bear Polar bear, Type 5: Simple stomached
panda dog, hyena, mammals, mostly
and lion carnivores but includes
mammals with extensive
dietary range

Source: Adapted from Ley, R.E., C.A. Lozupone, M. Hamady et al. 2008. Worlds within worlds: Evolution of the vertebrate
gut microbiota. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6(10):776–788.
Note: Microbiota type is based on the cumulative microbial composition of feces sampled from a variety of mammalian
hosts.
Symbiosis of Plants, Animals, and Microbes 195

the GIT are active in the digestion and absorption processes. Of particular interest for some animal
species is the developed cecum, which allows for dietary specialization (postgastric digestion and
fermentation).
At birth, the GIT in mammals is sterile, but that quickly changes unless the newborn is delivered
by Cesarean section and maintained germ-free. The lumens of the lower gastrointestinal tissues are
nutrient-rich and packed with not only digesta, but also bacteria that are degrading and utilizing
ingested nutrients. The GIT is an open system and susceptible to microorganisms from outside the
host; however, the predominant microflora in the GIT are often permanent residents and, in some
cases, unique to certain animal species. The bacterial population in the GIT can outnumber the host
cells by as much as 10 to 1, and the populated tract is now commonly recognized as an organ. The
microflora can be a source of energy, amino acids, and vitamins; and these bacteria can function to
modulate the immune system, regulate the function of the intestinal tissues, and prohibit pathogen
colonization.
Pathogens and other opportunistic bacteria can affect animal performance, and prohibition of
pathogen colonization by commensal or probiotic strains provides an important benefit to the host
animal. The beneficial bacteria can operate by several mechanisms, including competitive exclu-
sion, antimicrobial production (e.g., bacteriocins), and occupation of colonization sites.
Competitive exclusion, or Gause’s Law, describes a principle of ecology in which competing
species cannot co-exist with the same resources if all other factors are constant, and one organ-
ism will out-compete the other for nutrients to the point that the other becomes extinct or evolves.
Antimicrobial compounds can be produced by bacteria to inhibit another species, and the most com-
mon compounds are proteinaceous bacteriocins. Bacteriocins have been classified as Class I, IIa,
IIb, IIc, and III based on synthesis, biochemistry, and mechanism of action. However, categorization
of bacteriocins can depend on a number of factors, including mechanism of action and producing
species. For example, colicins and microcins are typically produced by Escherichia coli; lantibiot-
ics are produced by lactic acid bacteria; and subtilin is produced by Bacillus subtilis. Colonization
involves attaching or invading the epithelial tissue. Bacteria as a whole express a variety of extracel-
lular proteins for binding different glycoconjugates and epithelial cell components.
Abundant nutrients feed a diverse microflora and recent technologies should allow researchers to
understand better the strong relationship between host and gastrointestinal microflora. Phylogenetic
analyses utilize sequence information from cell DNA or proteins to study relatedness or classifica-
tion of different strains, species, genus, or higher orders. In microbiology, the 16s RNA gene is com-
monly used for classification of related bacteria. The 16s RNA gene sequences are interwoven with
conserved and variable regions, and sequencing a specific region allows the study of the diversity
in a sample of microflora. In the mammalian lower GIT, the predominant microflora is bacteria,
and of the approximately 24 phyla of bacteria, the lower intestine is predominated by the phyla
Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes. Overall, most Bacteroidetes in the distal intestine belong to the genera
Bacteroides, whereas most Firmicutes belong to genera Clostridium, Enterococcus, Lactobacillus,
Peptostreptococcus, and Ruminococcus. Minor phyla of abundance in the intestine, such as
Actinobacteria and Fusobacteria, are represented by genera Bifidobacterium and Fusobacterium,
respectively. The abundance of bacteria can vary by animal species and by location from the small
intestine to the colon, with species of Lactobacillus predominant in the jejunum region of the small
intestine and species of Bacteroides and Clostridium being predominant in other regions.
Historically, studies of microflora have involved isolation and culturing of bacteria. However,
these studies are time consuming and not all bacteria are easily cultured. Modern molecular meth-
ods for DNA amplification and sequencing have provided a different view of bacterial niches and
recent studies of the human intestinal microflora have provided a better understanding of the sym-
biosis in the intestine (Eckburg et al., 2005; Ley et al., 2008). Obesity in mice has been asso-
ciated with higher levels of the phyla Firmicutes and lower Bacteroidetes, and when germ-free
mice were inoculated with microbes from obese mice, the animals exhibited weight gain and lower
food intake. In humans, obese subjects exhibit similar patterns compared to lean subjects, and
196 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

imparting a dietary regime to obese subjects altered the microflora to higher Bacteroidetes and
lower Firmicutes. Changes in microflora composition are believed to be associated with changes in
the energy balance in the intestinal tract. Specific changes in bacterial genera or species have not
been reported, but based on results of these recent studies, modulation of gastrointestinal microflora
may affect weight gain, adipogenesis, and lean accretion.
Establishment of the gastrointestinal microflora is important to the host (March, 1979; Ratcliffe,
1991). Initial inhabitants in mammals are those ingested during passage at birth and from the moth-
er’s skin when suckling. Additional bacteria are ingested from the environment, and over time, the
gastrointestinal microflora stabilizes. Milk from the mother provides antimicrobial factors to reduce
pathogen risk in the neonate, and the newborn is specialized in digesting and absorbing the nutrient-
rich milk. Initial colonizers include coliforms (including E. coli), clostridia, and streptococci, and
are found in stomach and small intestinal contents. Species of Lactobacillus and other lactic acid
bacteria soon predominate in these tissues and colonize significant portions of the small intestinal
mucosa. The small intestine is a major colonization site for pathogenic E. coli associated with diar-
rhea in young mammals (enteropathogenic or enterotoxigenic E. coli; EPEC or ETEC, respectively),
and the bacteriocins and exclusion by colonized indigenous flora, in particular the Lactobacillus
spp., are major factors in reducing bacterial disease.
The stomach has several distinct tissue regions, and the acids produced by the secretory regions
are lethal to many bacteria. In the monogastric stomach, the bacterial populations are highest after
meals (1000 to 1,000,000 colony forming units per gram of luminal contents) when stomach acid is
diluted (Katouli and Wallgren, 2005). Bacterial populations are lowest after digestion is complete,
with bacteria often undetectable in luminal contents of the stomach. Many of the observed lumi-
nal bacteria may originate with the food or feed, or are dislodged from the upper GIT when food
is chewed and swallowed. Regardless, bacteria observed in the stomach contents of the piglet are
sparse relative to other regions of the GIT. The non-secreting regions harbor a number of bacteria,
and the bacterial flora present are mostly attached to the stomach epithelial surface or embed-
ded in these tissue linings. Lactobacillus spp. is most often isolated, although E. coli and species
of Streptococcus, Eubacterium, Bifidobacterium, Staphylococcus, Clostridium, and Bacteroides
have been isolated. Although their numbers may be small, these commensal colonizers such as
Lactobacillus spp. may reduce ulcerations by excluding or preventing colonization by Helicobacter
pyloris (humans), H. suis (swine), and H. bovis (ruminants), and similar mucosal irritants. Numerous
bacteria have been tested in vitro, including L. johnsonii, L. acidophilus, L. reuteri, L. gasseria,
Weisella confusa, and Bacillus subtilus. Effective beneficial commensal and probiotic bacteria in
the stomach would have to tolerate low pH and rapid luminal turnover, and need to colonize epithe-
lial surface glycolipids targeted by bacterial irritants in stomachs such as H. pylori.
Colonization of the stomach is not limited to the monogastric stomach. Numerous animals have
evolved specialized stomachs. In particular, compartmentalization of the stomach regions has led
to diversity and food specializations in mammals to exploit microbial interactions (Russell and
Rychlik, 2001). In particular, mammals that derive some nutrients from pregastric fermentations
have evolved to exploit utilization of plant forages and fiber in their diets. The rumen is one such
compartmentalization that will be discussed in detail later. Regardless of the animal species, a
compartment equivalent to the gastric stomach, or abomasum, serves as a barrier to transient and
pathogenic bacteria that would otherwise invade the lower nutrient-rich GIT.
The small intestine is common to most animals and has three physiological regions—the duo-
denum, jejunum, and ileum—each with distinct roles in digestion and absorption. The duodenum
is a primary site for secretions of bile and enzymes that aid digestion. In contrast, the jejunum and
ileum are important for absorption of nutrients. Overall, the small intestine has a fast passage rate
for digesta, compared to the regions of the lower intestine, and the lumenal contents have fewer
bacteria. The commensal bacteria in the small intestine, such as Lactobacillus spp., are most often
attached to the intestinal epithelial lining and sloughed into the lumen, with the jejunum and ileum
being primary sites for bacterial colonization.
Symbiosis of Plants, Animals, and Microbes 197

The piglet has one of the most frequently studied small intestine systems due to similarities with
that of humans (Katouli and Wallgren, 2005). Commensal Lactobacillus spp. in the small intestine
most often cultured from the piglet include L. fermentum, L. acidophilus, and L. delbrueckii. In com-
parison, molecular fingerprinting has more recently identified L. mucosae, L. delbrueckii, L. sali-
varius, and L. johnsonii as being most abundant in weaned piglets. Phylogenetically similar species
have been observed with young cattle and poultry. These lactobacilli are typically resistant to bile and
other intestinal secretions, and bind to the mucosa via mucin and epithelial binding proteins. Many
lactobacilli produce antimicrobial compounds, commonly referred to as bacteriocins, and specifically
known as lantobiotics for these bacteria. In addition, colonization by Lactobacillus spp. may alter host
defensive responses, cytokine release, and immune activity. Bifidobacterium spp. can also generate
similar responses in humans, cattle, and poultry, but these bacteria are rarely abundant in swine.
The large intestine is common to most animals and has three separate regions—the cecum,
the colon, and the rectum—each of which aid in absorption of nutrients and water. The cecum is
a region of divergent evolution that has allowed for specialization by the host animal. Amphibians
lack any cecal structure, and fish have “pyloric ceca,” or out-pockets, along the intestine but not a
defined cecum. In most animals, with the exception of amphibians and fish, the cecum is a pouch
of the large intestine located at the connection between the small intestine and the large intestine.
Birds have two ceca, whereas most mammals have only one cecum. The primary function of the
cecum is to provide space for post-gastric fermentation and for absorption of volatile fatty acids.
Therefore, the cecum varies in size, with specialized herbivores having a large voluminous cecum
and carnivores having a small cecum, or in these latter animals, essentially a blind pouch at the
proximal end of the colon with a small appendix tube in some cases.
Bacteria in the lower GIT are predominantly strict anaerobes belonging to the Firmicutes and
Bacteroidetes phyla at concentrations of 1010 to 1011 per gram of lumenal content, but can vary
between host animal species, with host diet, and from one host GIT region to another (Allison et al.,
1979; Katouli and Wallgren, 2005; Robinson, Allison, and Bucklin, 1981). The bulk of microbial
diversity is found in the lower GIT, with estimates of 400+ autochthonous, or indigenous, strains
in the ecosystem. Colonization of the cecum after birth appears to assist with the development of
the immune system, even in carnivores and humans that lack a developed cecum. In the developed
cecum, the microfloras for the young pig and the laying hen have been characterized by a number
of studies. In classical anaerobic studies with isolated strains, the swine cecal bacterial strains were
characterized as predominantly Prevotella sp. and Selenomonas ruminantium, whereas culture-in-
dependent techniques detected not only an abundance of Prevotella sp. but also higher levels of low
G+C microorganism related to the diverse group of Gram-positive bacteria including Clostridium
(Leser et al., 2002). In the hen, recent culture-independent techniques recognized Prevotella/
Bacteroides members as the predominant genera in the fed hen, and Bacteroides as the predomi-
nant genera in hens during molting induced by withholding feed (Callaway et al., 2009). The cecum
may also harbor certain pathogens, with Salmonella sp. and Clostridium difficile detectable at high
levels in swine and molting hens. In the GIT of swine, E. coli and related coliforms (Proteobacteria)
tend to be at their highest concentrations in the cecum and decrease in concentration with passage
through the colon. Cultured lactobacilli are found at their highest level in the small intestine, and
appear to decrease in amount through the cecum and colon. The microflora in the colon, like the
cecum, includes variable levels of Prevotella, Bacteroides, Clostridium, and Lactobacilli sp., but
also includes Eubacterium and Enterococci sp. not always observed in the cecum.
The microflora in the lower GIT is beneficial to the host in several ways (Wells and Varel, 2005).
Autochthonous bacterial strains colonize the mucosal layer and serve as a primary deterrent to
pathogen colonization and entry. The volatile fatty acids generated by microflora fermenting fiber
in the cecum and colon can contribute 20 to 30% of the total caloric requirement of omnivores
and herbivores (Bergman, 1990). In particular, butyrate is a primary energy source for entero-
cytes, and butyrate-producing bacteria represent an important functional group of diverse genera
(Eubacterium, Roseburia, and Faecelibacterium sp.) that promote intestinal growth, development,
198 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

and health (Louis and Flint, 2009). Microbial activity also leads to vitamin synthesis; however, the
impact is limited for some vitamins due to poor absorption from the lower GIT. Animals reared
germ-free require vitamin K supplementation, but normally raised animals do not, and germ-free
animals require more B vitamins in their diet. The lower intestinal tract has limited ability to
absorb amino acids and, in swine, lysine from microbial activity may contribute 10% of a young
pig’s requirements and most of a grown pig’s needs. Coprophagia (consumption of feces) has been
observed in a variety of animals; however, the rabbit, like many hares and picas, has adapted a
unique version in which cecal contents are passed directly thorough the colon and the “soft feces,”
or cecotropes, are re-ingested to extract additional protein and vitamins arising from the initial
microbial activity in the cecum.

Pregastric Fermentation and the Ruminant

Animals differ in their abilities to digest foods, and some animals have developed specialized
regions of the GIT to exploit microorganisms for digestion, fermentation, or production of nutrients.
Pregastric compartmentalization allows for microbial activity prior to the digestion and absorption
of nutrients by the host animal. Mammals lack enzymes to break down fiber and digest forages, but
microorganisms have these enzymes and can perform these activities. In addition, the host animal
can digest the microorganisms as they pass into the lower GIT, and these microorganisms are rich
in proteins that have amino acid profiles to meet the host animal’s requirements.
Ruminants, in particular, have evolved strong symbiotic relationships with microbes for these
purposes, and cattle, sheep, goats, and deer are species that provide most of the meat (>50%) and
milk (>90%) consumed by humans. Typically described as having four stomachs, the ruminant
animal actually has four specialized compartments of the stomach (Hungate, 1966; Russell and
Rychlik, 2001). The rumen is the largest compartment, accounting for 15% of the total empty
weight of the GIT. This large voluminous compartment is the primary site for microbial activity.
In ruminant animals predominantly consuming forage, the products of microbial fermentations
are volatile fatty acids (acetate, propionate, and butyrate are the most abundant) and gases (carbon
dioxide and methane). The volatile fatty acids from the rumen can account for up to 70% of the host
energy requirements (Bergman, 1990), and the host has adopted metabolic pathways to utilize the
volatile fatty acids produced. Most of the glucose used by tissues of ruminant animals originates
from propionate conversion by the liver. Microbial proteins produced in the rumen can account for
40 to 90% of the animal’s protein requirements, and the animal has a protein requirement similar to
the amino acid composition of microbial proteins in rumen fluid (Bergen and Wu, 2009; Reynolds
and Kristensen, 2008; Wells and Russell, 1996).
To accommodate the microbial activity and fermentations, ruminant animals continuously pass
saliva rich in sodium carbonate into the rumen to buffer the acid product. Nitrogen, in the form of
urea, continuously flows into the rumen through the saliva and from the blood in the epithelial tissue
of the rumen. Urea is rapidly hydrolyzed in the rumen to ammonia and this free ammonia is impor-
tant in the nitrogen cycle between the rumen microbes and host. The microbes in the rumen have
adapted to using sodium gradients across their membranes to drive nutrient uptake systems and to
using ammonia as a predominant source of nitrogen for microbial protein synthesis.
The microbial flora in the rumen is a complex milieu of bacteria, protozoa, and some fungi, many
of which can be diet specific and unique in nature to the rumen ecosystem (Hungate, 1966; Russell and
Rychlik, 2001). Bacteria constitute the bulk of the rumen microbial mass and functionality of the rumen
is dependent on the bacterial composition. Forages are predominantly cellulose and hemicellulose in
structure and are digested in the rumen by a combination of several bacteria, including Fibrobacter
succinogenes, Ruminococcus albus, R. flavefaciens, Eubacterium ruminantium, Prevotella rumin-
cola, P. albensis, P. brevis, P. bryantii, Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens, and Selenomonas ruminantium. In
ruminant animals being fed concentrate diets, predominant bacteria may include Ruminobacter amy-
lophilus, Succinomonas amylolytica, Streptococcus bovis, Lactobacillus sp., Succinovibrio dextrino-
solvens, Megasphaera elsdenii, Prevotella sp., Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens, and S. ruminantium. Other
Symbiosis of Plants, Animals, and Microbes 199

important ruminal bacteria include Lachnospira multiparus (pectinolytic), Anaerovibrio lipolytica

(lipolytic), Peptostreptococcus anaerobius (aminophilic), Clostridium aminophilum (aminophilic),
C. sticklandii (aminophilic), Wolinella succinogenes (organic acid utilizer), Methanobrevibacter
ruminantium (methanogen), Methanomicrobium sp. (methanogen), Methanobacterium sp. (methano-
gen), and Methanosarcina sp. (methanogen). Propionate is important for glucose homeostasis in the
host, and production in the rumen is directly, via propionate production, or indirectly, via succinate
production, associated with the strains of F. succinogenes, R. flavefaciens, Ruminobacter amylophi-
lus, S. amylolytica, the numerous Prevotella sp., and S. ruminantium, which can convert the ruminal
succinate to propionate. Butyrate is important for milk fat synthesis in dairy ruminants, and is pro-
duced as a primary metabolite by Butyrivibrio fibrosolvens and numerous varieties of Clostridium.
While generally recognized as mutualistic, some of the ruminal bacteria can be detrimental
to animal performance. Streptococcus bovis is associated with rapid lactic acid accumulation and
rumen acidosis in grain-fed cattle, while lactate-utilizing bacteria such as Megasphaera elsdenii
and Selenomonas ruminatium can reduce lactic acid accumulation. Opportunistic organisms like
Fusobacterium necrophorum can also utilize lactate and infect rumen ulcers arising from even
minor bouts of acidosis. Another group of ruminal bacteria, the methanogens, provides no net
energy to the ruminant animal, and their production of methane represents both an energy loss to
the animal and the generation of significant greenhouse gases associated with global warming.
Ruminal protozoa and fungi are less studied components of the rumen milieu, but still important
in rumen ecology and animal production (Trinci et al., 1994; Veira, 1986). The protozoa observed in
ruminal fluid are, with a few exceptions, unique to the rumen. Rumen protozoa can account for up to
40% of the microbial biomass, and defaunation, or the elimination of the protozoan population, can
alter rumen fermentation. Protozoa are highly mobile and attach to feed particles and rumen wall
surface, which reduces the washout rate and minimizes protozoan contribution to net rumen output.
The rumen protozoa ingest and digest a number of ruminal bacteria for a source of protein and
nutrients. Methanogens appear to colonize the body surface of protozoa (Figure 9.2), and appear to
have established an intra-ruminal mutualistic relationship with protozoa that predominantly pro-
duce acetate and hydrogen gas. Defaunation often results in less energy losses to nitrogen recycling
and methane production, but no significant reductions in rumen digestion are apparent because
rumen bacteria fill the niche or void.
Rumen protozoa are mostly ciliated protozoa, belonging to either holotrichs or entodiniomorphs.
Flagellated protozoa are present, but at low numbers in the rumen (Hungate, 1966; Veira, 1986).

FIGURE 9.2 Microbes attached to the surface of protozoa isolated from the rumen of cow-fed forage. This
is an example of a symbiosis within a symbiosis, denoting the complexity of research to determine cost-benefit
to symbiotic interactions. (Micrograph by Sharon Franklin and Mark Rasmussen, National Animal Disease
Center, ARS, USDA.)
200 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

The holotrichs are covered nearly entirely with cilia and comprised of Isotricha and Dasytrichia
species, which are the predominant types observed in the rumen of grazing animals. The ento-
diniomorphs have cilia localized in specialized bands called syncilia to aid in food ingestion and
locomotion. The entodiniomorphs are in greater variety and the abundance of specific genera is
dependent on the host diet. The entodiniomorph groups consist of morphologically distinct species
of Entodinium, Epidinium, Ophryoscolex, Diplodium, Eudiplodium, and Polyplastron, of which
Diplodium, Eudiplodium, and Polyplastron have cellulolytic activities and may play a role in fiber
digestion. Many of the holotrichs and entodiniopmorphs can ingest and accumulate starch granules.
Strains of Entodium are more tolerant of rumen acidity and are most abundant in rumens of animals
fed high grain diets. When protozoa accumulate starch, rapid digestion and production of lactic acid
is reduced, thereby alleviating clinical and subclinical rumen acidosis.
Anaerobic fungi have been isolated from pregastric and postgastric herbivorous animals, but are
most often observed in ruminants consuming high-fiber diets (Trinci et al., 1994). Vegetative fungi,
or the thallus-forming bodies associated with colonization and degradation, are present in rumen
at levels lower than protozoa. However, these unique microorganisms have adapted to foraging
animals and many types are adept at digesting fiber with the invasive filamentous rhizoids, particu-
larly for the most recalcitrant types of cellulose that many bacteria have difficulty digesting. The
Neocallimastigaceae family of fungi is the sole family of the phylum Neocallimastigomycota, which
includes six genera, including Anaeromyces, Caecomyces, Cyllamyces, Orpinomyces, Piromyces,
and Neocallimastix. The Neocallimastix are the best described and most often reported filamentous
fungi in the rumen. Anaerobic rumen fungi lack mitochondria and, like the ciliated protozoa, use
specialized hydrogenosomes that produce hydrogen gas, which, in turn, is converted to methane by
rumen methanogens. The presence of fibrolytic species of ruminal bacteria and anaerobic fungi are
often associated with increased fiber degradation and utilization.
Birds, some fish, and reptiles have developed compartmented stomachs. The two compartments
include the proventriculus, or true stomach, which is secretory, and the ventriculus, or gizzard,
which is a muscular stomach for grinding food. Many birds have a muscular pouch preceding the
proventriculus called a crop for storing food, but this compartment is an adaptation of the esophagus
and not a compartment of the stomach. Since food is stored in the crop, fermentation by microbes
is likely to occur. Herbivorous birds like the hoatzin specialize in eating leaves of trees (foliovores)
and the crop in these birds contains a diverse microbial ecosystem predominated by Firmicutes
and Bacteroidetes that digest the leaves and provide the host with fermentation products for energy
and microbial cells for protein (Godoy-Vitorino et al., 2010). In contrast, commercial agricultural
birds, such as the chicken and turkey, have crops adapted to omnivorous diets and the crop of these
birds is predominantly colonized by species of Lactobacillus, similar to the ileum and jejunum
(Hilmi et al., 2007). The Lactobacillus strains appear to be influential in minimizing colonization
by pathogenic E. coli and Salmonella strains.

SYmbiOsis AND EVOlUTiON iN ANimAls

The GIT is one of the best-studied and most-described symbiotic ecosystems. Host adaptations,
such as foregut and hindgut fermenters, are obvious for the host to exploit the power of microbial
enzymes. However, the complexity of the system and diversity of the microbiota have precluded an
understanding of the strength of the host-microbial interaction. Pyrosequencing of complex micro-
biota samples has allowed a quantifiable measure of diversity and abundance for different microbial
members, and studies of feces from intercrossed mice lines identified 13 regions in the mouse
genome associated with abundance of one or more of the bacterial groups analyzed (Benson et al.,
2010). Mouse chromosomes 1, 7, and 10 contain a number of genomic regions with strong associa-
tions to genus groups and higher orders. Concerning individual species, no specific species relation-
ship was observed. However, strong association between a Lactobacillus johnsonii/gasseri group
and chromosomes 7 and 14 were found, but none with L. reuteri or L. animalis/murinus group, and
Symbiosis of Plants, Animals, and Microbes 201

results suggest a microbiota associated with heritable genetic factors. Many of the genes within the
identified genomic regions are associated with mucosal immunity.
In biology, the hologenome theory of evolution has been proposed and recognizes the close
relationship between symbiotic partners, or holobiont, and that this affects the combined genome,
or hologenome, of the partners (Zilber-Rosenberg and Rosenberg, 2008). The theory is based on
generalizations that animals and plants establish symbiotic relationships with microbes, that sym-
biotic microbes are transmitted between generations, that the relationship affects the holobiont, and
that variations in the hologenome can result from changes in the host or the genome of microbes.
Thus, as proposed by this theory, evolutionary pressure on the host may be compensated not only
by the host, but also by the symbionts that comprise the holobiont. In periods of rapid environmen-
tal change, quick adaptation by a versatile symbiont would be beneficial to the host and allow for
survival, if not expansion, of the host into the new ecosystem.
Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron is a host-adapted microorganism that can predominate in the GIT
of humans. This Gram-negative organism has a completed genome sequence and analyses have
revealed a diverse arsenal of genes adept at digesting complex polysaccharides, acquiring nutrients,
and producing surface adherence factors for colonization and complex regulatory mechanisms to
control and modulate gene expression (Comstock and Coyne, 2003). In addition, this organism is
adept at assimilating mobile DNA elements that transmit from cell-to-cell via transposons and
plasmids, and the plasticity of this genome indicates the versatility that the microbe has evolved
to remain a strong host-adapted symbiont. Similar relationships exist between B. vulgatus and
B. distasonis and the human distal intestine, and it is likely that additional relationships between
microbes and their host will be forthcoming as molecular tools and modern sciences tease apart the
relationships and understand the genomic traits driving symbioses (Xu et al., 2007).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Modern agriculture has led to significant improvements in efficiency of food production. The use
of fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, antibiotics, and growth promoters has been instru-
mental in feeding the world. However, natural selection has established interactions that are often
overlooked or disregarded. These symbiotic relationships could potentially reduce our use of syn-
thetic agents and promote a more sustainable productive agricultural system. In addition, dedicating
research efforts to better describe and understand beneficial symbiosis would allow more opportuni-
ties to exploit mutualistic relationships when they arise. Planting crops in particular rotations and
with minimal tillage may sustain rhizospere interactions that promote healthiness and growth of
plants. Herbivores, such as the ruminant, have historically benefitted from a variety of symbioses

Ruminant herbivore—Microorganisms in the rumen

Ruminant herbivore— digest the fibrous diet and convert forage to protein
Defecation contains and utilizable volatile fatty acids
seeds and nutrients Ruminant herbivore—Consuming grass leaves
for conditioning the and seeds
soil
Phyllosphere—fungal endophytes
in the leaf and seed
Rhizosphere—Bacteria competitively
excluding pathogens in the root zone
Rhizosphere—Arbuscular mycorrhiza
extending the root zone

FIGURE 9.3 An ecosystem denoting symbiotic relationships of importance to animal agriculture.

202 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

(Figure 9.3), and there are many opportunities to enhance our understanding of these relationships
to better utilize non-cultivatable land for animal production. Nature has provided humans with an
arsenal of microbes and we need to understand better how to use them with modern practices.

REFERENCES
Allison, M.J., I.M. Robinson, J.A. Bucklin et al. 1979. Comparison of bacterial populations of the pig
cecum and colon based upon enumeration with specific energy sources. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
37(6):1142–1151.
Asner, G.P., S.R. Levick, T. Kennedy-Bowdoin et al. 2009. Large-scale impacts of herbivores on the structural
diversity of African savannas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(12):4947–4952.
Augustine, D.J., and S.J. McNaughton. 2004. Regulation of shrub dynamics by native browsing ungulates on
East African rangeland. J. Appl. Ecol. 41:45–58.
Bailey, D.W. 2005. Management strategies for optimal grazing distribution and use of arid rangelands. J. Anim.
Sci. 82(E. Supplement):E147–E153.
Barea, J.-M., M.J. Pozo, R. Azcón et al. 2005. Microbial co-operation in the rhizosphere. J Exp. Bot.
56(417):1761–1778.
Benson, A.K., S.A. Kelly, R. Legge et al. 2010. Individuality in gut microbiota composition is a complex
polygenic trait shaped by multiple environmental and host genetic factors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
107(44):18933–18938.
Berg, G., and K. Smalla. 2009. Plant species and soil type cooperatively shape the structure and function of
microbial communities in the rhizosphere. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 68(1):1–13.
Bergen, W.G., and G. Wu. 2009. Intestinal nitrogen recycling and utilization in health and disease. J. Nutr.
139(5):821–825.
Bergman, E.N. 1990. Energy contributions of volatile fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract in various spe-
cies. Physiol. Rev. 70(2):567–590.
Bhattacharjee, R.B., A. Singh, and S.N. Mukhopadhyay. 2008. Use of nitrogen-fixing bacteria as biofertiliser
for non-legumes: Prospects and challenges. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 80(2):199–209.
Bonfante, P., and A. Genre. 2010. Mechanisms underlying beneficial plant-fungus interactions in mycorrhizal
symbiosis. Nature Comm. 1:48 doi: 10.1038/nscomms1046.
Callaway, T.R., S.E. Dowd, R.D. Wolcott et al. 2009. Evaluation of the bacterial diversity in cecal contents of
laying hens fed various molting diets by using bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing.
Poultry Sci. 88(2):298–302.
Comstock, L.E., and M.J. Coyne. 2003. Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron: a dynamic, niche-adapted human sym-
biont. BioEssays 25(10):926–929.
Degnan, P.H., T.E. Leonardo, B.N. Cass et al. 2010. Dynamics of genome evolution in facultative symbionts of
aphids. Environ. Microbiol. 12(8):2060–2069.
Eckburg, P.B., E.M. Bik, C.N. Bernstein et al. 2005. Diversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. Science
308(5728):1635–1638.
Godoy-Vitorino, F., K.C. Goldfarb, E.L. Brodie et al. 2010. Developmental microbial ecology of the crop of the
folivorous hoatzin. ISME J. 4(5):611–620.
Hilmi, H.T.A., A. Surakka, J. Apahalahti et al. 2007. Identification of the most abundant Lactobacillus species
in the crop of 1- and 5-week-old broiler chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73(24):7867–7873.
Hungate, R.E. 1966. The Rumen and Its Microbes. New York: Academic Press.
Hurek, T., and B. Reinhold-Hurek. 2003. Azoarcus sp. Strain BH72 as a model for nitrogen-fixing grass endo-
phytes. J. Biotechnol. 106(2-3):169–178.
Kant, M.R., and I.T. Baldwin. 2007. The ecogenetics and ecogenomics of plant-herbivore interactions: Rapid
progress on a slippery road. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 17(6):519–524.
Katouli, M., and P. Wallgren. 2005. Metabolism and population dynamics of the intestinal microflora in the
growing pig. In: Microbial Ecology in Growing Animals, W.H. Holzapfel and P.J. Naughton, Eds. New
York: Elsevier, pp. 21–53.
Leser, T.D., J.Z. Amenuvor, T.K. Jensen, et al. 2002. Culture-independent analysis of gut bacteria: The pig
gastrointestinal tract microbiota revisited. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68(2):673–690.
Ley, R.E., C.A. Lozupone, M. Hamady et al. 2008. Worlds within worlds: Evolution of the vertebrate gut
microbiota. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6(10):776–788.
Lindström, K., M. Murwira, A. Willems et al. 2010. The biodiversity of beneficial microbe-host mutualism:
The case of rhizobia. Res. Microbiol. 161(6):453–463.
Symbiosis of Plants, Animals, and Microbes 203

Louis, P., and H.J. Flint. 2009. Diversity, metabolism and microbial ecology of butyrate-producing bacteria
from the human large intestine. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 294(1):1–8.
March, B.E. 1979. The host and its microflora: An ecological unit. J. Anim. Sci. 49(3):857–867.
Mocali, S., and A. Benedetti. 2010. Exploring research frontiers in microbiology: The challenge of metag-
enomics in soil microbiology. Res. Microbiol. 161(6):497–505.
Newton, A.C., B.D.L. Fitt, S.D. Atkins et al. 2010. Pathogenesis, parasitism and mutualism I the trophic space
of microbe-plant interactions. Trends in Microbiol. 18:365–373.
Pakeman, R.J., G. Digneffe, and J.L. Small. 2002. Ecological correlates of endozoochory by herbivores.
Functional Ecol. 16:296–304.
Parker, J.D., D.E. Burkepile, and M.E. Hay. 2006. Opposing effects of native and exotic herbivores on plant
invasions. Science 311(5766):1459–1461.
Ratcliffe, B. 1991. The role of the microflora in digestion. In: In Vitro Digestion for Pigs and Poultry, M.F.
Fuller, Ed. 19-34. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International.
Reynolds, C.K., and N.B. Kristensen. 2008. Nitrogen recycling through the gut and the nitrogen economy of
ruminants: An asynchronous symbiosis. J. Anim. Sci. 86(E Supplement):E293–E305.
Rinella, M.J., and B.J. Hileman. 2009. Efficacy of prescribed grazing depends on timing intensity and fre-
quency. J. Appl. Ecol. 46:796–803.
Robinson, I.M., M.J. Allison, and J.A. Bucklin. 1981. Characterization of the cecal bacteria of normal pigs.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 41(4):950–955.
Rosomer, W.S., and J.G. Stoffolano. 1997. The Science of Entolomology. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown
Pub.
Russell, J.B., and J.L. Rychlik. 2001. Factors that alter rumen microbial ecology. Science 292(5519):
1119–1122.
Schardl, C.L., A. Leuchtmann, and M.J. Spiering. 2004. Symbioses of grasses with seedborne fungal endo-
phytes. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 55:315–340.
Steenhoudt, O., and J. Vanderleyden. 2000. Azospirillum, a free-living nitrogen-fixing bacterium closely associ-
ated with grasses: Genetic, biochemical and ecological aspects. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 24(4):487–506.
Stout, M.J., J.S. Thaler, and B.P.H.J. Thomma. 2006. Plant-mediated interactions between pathogenic microor-
ganisms and herbivorous antropods. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 51:663–689.
Trinci, A.P.J., D.R. Davies, K. Gull et al. 1994. Anaerobic fungi in herbivorous animals. Mycol. Res.
98(2):129–152.
Veira, D.M. 1986. The role of ciliate protozoa in nutrition in ruminant. J. Anim. Sci. 63(5):1547–1560.
Wells, J.E., and J.B. Russell. 1996. Why do many ruminal bacteria die and lyse so quickly? J. Dairy Sci.
79(8):1487–1495.
Wells, J.E., and V.H. Varel. 2005. GI tract: Animal/microbial symbiosis. In: Encyclopedia of Animal Science,
W.G. Pond and A.W. Bell, Eds. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 585–587.
Williams, B.A.P. 2009. Unique physiology of host-parasite interactions in microsporidia infections. Cell.
Microbiol. 11(11):1551–1560.
Xu, J., M.A. Mahowald, R.E. Ley et al. 2007. Evolution of symbiotic bacteria in the distal human intestine.
PLoS Biol. 5(7):1574–1586.
Zilber-Rosenberg, I., and E. Rosenberg. 2008. Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants:
The hologenome theory of evolution. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 32(5):723–735.
 10 Food Safety Issues in Animal
Source Foods Related to
Animal Health and Welfare
Jarret D. Stopforth, John N. Sofos, Steve
L. Taylor, and Joseph L. Baumert

CONTENTS
Microbial Food Safety....................................................................................................................206
Introduction................................................................................................................................206
Food Safety: Complex Challenge..............................................................................................206
Physical Hazards...................................................................................................................207
Chemical Hazards.................................................................................................................207
Biological Hazards................................................................................................................207
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Food Products................................................................207
Microbial Food Safety and Animal Welfare...............................................................................209
General..................................................................................................................................209
Animal Stressing................................................................................................................... 210
Animal Manure Issues........................................................................................................... 211
Animal Health and Food Safety in Organic and Conventional Production Systems................. 211
Impact on Food Safety.......................................................................................................... 212
Impact on Antimicrobial Resistance Development............................................................... 213
Impact on Animal Health...................................................................................................... 214
Managing Animal Health and Welfare and Food Safety............................................................ 215
Regulations, Standards, and Trade Implications Regarding Food Safety and
Animal Health and Welfare................................................................................................... 215
Improving Animal Health and Welfare to Complement Food Safety................................... 216
Harmonizing Animal Health and Welfare and Food Safety through a
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)-Based Approach......................................... 218
Summary and Future Outlook.................................................................................................... 219
References.................................................................................................................................. 220
Chemical Food Safety.....................................................................................................................224
Introduction................................................................................................................................224
Chemical Hazards Associated with Animal-Based Food Products............................................224
Naturally Occurring Toxicants in Animal-Based Foods............................................................224
Potentially Toxic Manufactured Chemicals in Animal-Based Food Products........................... 226
Food Additives....................................................................................................................... 227
Agricultural Chemicals......................................................................................................... 227
Feed Additives....................................................................................................................... 227
Veterinary Drugs and Antibiotics.......................................................................................... 227
Industrial Chemicals.............................................................................................................. 228
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs)........................ 228

205
206 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Intentional Adulterants.......................................................................................................... 228

Food Allergens from Animal-Based Food Products.................................................................. 228
Summary.................................................................................................................................... 230
References.................................................................................................................................. 230

MICROBIAL FOOD SAFETY

Jarret D. Stopforth and John N. Sofos
INTRODUCTiON
Major current societal issues of concern include animal welfare and food safety (Rostagno, 2009).
There is general public consensus that improved animal health and well-being contributes favor-
ably to food safety and, although it is difficult to always draw a direct correlation to this concept,
there are examples or evidence supporting this idea (de Passille and Rushen, 2005). Animal wel-
fare is considered an ethical issue; however, scientific evidence linking animal welfare to animal
health should create a clearer relationship to its overall effect on food safety aside from the ethical
considerations.
Despite the extensive scientific progress and major technological advances of recent years, mil-
lions of foodborne disease episodes occur annually in the United States and other countries, causing
thousands of deaths and major economic losses (Mead et al., 1999; Scharff, 2010). According to the
latest estimates by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), foodborne
disease agents cause approximately 47 million foodborne illnesses, 127,000 hospitalizations, and
3000 deaths per year in the United States (Morris, 2011; Scallan et al., 2011a, b). A large propor-
tion of the foodborne disease burden may be attributed directly to consumption of animal source
food products or indirectly to food animal production through cross-contamination of the environ-
ment, other food, or water with pathogens originating from animals (Sofos, 2008, 2009; Sofos and
Geornaras, 2010).
As there is a worldwide increase in demand for animal source food products, which is expected
to rise even more as disposable income increases, the animal source food product industry is
challenged to meet such demands, while concurrently realizing the need for improved welfare for
food animals in production animal agriculture (Sofos, 2008, 2009). In brief, the industry is faced
with the challenge of increasing production while at the same time considering and addressing
issues associated with animal welfare, climate change, environmental pollution, and food safety.
Balancing animal welfare, animal health, and food safety is not easily achieved as the assur-
ance of one often may impede another. For example, animal lairage designs for improved food
safety (lower external carriage of pathogenic bacteria, which may be transferred to the underly-
ing sterile tissue during carcass dressing) may result in discomfort to the animal. Conversely,
the use of antibiotics to control animal diseases (and thus ensure their well-being) may result in
development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria pathogens in food from the same animal source. This
chapter provides an overview of basic and current food safety issues and explores the relationship
between enhancing food safety and implementing proper animal welfare conditions during food
production.

FOOD SAFETY: COmPlEX CHAllENGE

According to results from surveys sponsored by the United States Food Marketing Institute (FMI),
major food safety concerns of consumers usually include bacterial contamination, pesticide resi-
dues, product tampering, and bioterrorism (www.fmi.org). Other concerns or desires expressed by
consumers have included hormone residues, “natural” and “organic” products, antibiotic residues,
food trace-back, animal welfare, food cost, the environment, and bovine spongiform encephalopa-
thy (BSE). In general, numerous aspects of our food supply have come under intense scrutiny and
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 207

are being questioned worldwide. Even though food safety is often a fundamental expectation, it
remains a complicated challenge for the food industry (Sofos, 2008, 2009). Food safety problems
associated with animal source food products can be divided into physical, chemical, and biological
hazards (ICMSF, 1996, 2002; NACMCF, 1998).

Physical Hazards
Physical hazards are physical objects introduced into food that may cause injury, but seldom death.
Since these hazards can be controlled through good manufacturing practices during production,
harvesting, processing, and transportation, and at food service sites, they will not be discussed
further.

Chemical Hazards
A wide variety of chemicals may be used in food production and processing. This subject is covered
in depth in the section “Chemical Food Safety” of this chapter. Some are acceptable additives while
others are strictly forbidden for use in foods. Chemical hazards affect more people than physical
hazards, but typically not as many as biological hazards. Chemical hazards should be addressed at
each step in the production process: Growth, storage, during use (cleaning agents, sanitizers), prior
to receipt (in ingredients and packaging materials), upon receipt of materials, during processing,
and prior to shipment of product. Chemicals that should be considered include color additives, direct
food additives, indirect food additives, prior-sanctioned substances, allergens, pesticide chemicals,
and substances generally recognized as safe. All chemicals used in and around manufactured prod-
ucts should have specifications developed (safe levels of naturally occurring or deliberately added
chemicals in food which may be potentially harmful to human health), as well as letters of guar-
antee (indicating that products are manufactured under sanitary conditions, packaged in approved
materials, and comply with government notices/regulations and company standards) from the man-
ufacturer. Foodborne illnesses caused by chemicals or chemical residues are often difficult to link to
a particular food because the onset may be gradual and undetected until chronic or permanent dam-
age occurs. On the farm, chemicals of concern are organophosphate pesticides, growth-promoting
hormones, antibiotic residues, additives, and naturally occurring toxins (i.e., aflatoxins). These are
generally controlled by food safety programs through the enforcement of maximum residue levels
based on the assessment of risk that the chemicals pose to human health, yet there is also a need to
consider the risk to and health of animals in the production sector due to chemical hazards.

Biological Hazards
Biological hazards associated with foodborne illnesses include pathogenic bacteria, fungi, viruses,
parasitic agents, and infectious materials (Bacon and Sofos, 2003). According to United States
CDC estimates (Scallan et al., 2011a), based on data for the period 2000–2008, 31 major pathogens
acquired in the United States caused 9.4 million episodes of foodborne illness, 55,961 hospital-
izations, and 1351 deaths annually. Most (58%) illnesses were caused by noroviruses, followed
by non-typhoidal Salmonella (11%), Clostridium perfringens (10%), and Campylobacter spp.
(9%). Leading causes of hospitalization were non-typhoidal Salmonella (35%), norovirus (26%),
Campylobacter spp. (15%), and Toxoplasma gondii (8%). Leading causes of death were non-ty-
phoidal Salmonella spp. (28%), T. gondii (24%), Listeria monocytogenes (19%), and norovirus
(11%). There is a consensus in the food sector that biological hazards should be controlled effec-
tively in order to improve food safety.

FOOD SAFETY IssUEs iN ANimAl SOURCE FOOD PRODUCTs

The safety of meat products has come under intense scrutiny in recent years because of major
bacterial outbreaks that have been associated with their consumption. Food safety concerns associ-
ated with animal source food products and other foods are expected to continue. Reasons for the
208 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

increased importance of food safety concerns include (Samelis and Sofos, 2003; Sofos, 2008, 2009;
Sofos and Geornaras, 2010):

• Changes in animal and plant food production and harvesting practices

• Food processing modifications and marketing developments
• Preparation practices and development of new food products to meet consumer demands
• Increased urbanization of society and the associated need for transportation of large
amounts of food products from centralized production and processing factories to urban
centers
• Increased international trade and associated transportation of foods from exporting to
importing countries
• Globalization of the food industry
• Increased travel, which may enhance transfer of pathogens among countries
• Changing consumer demographics, lifestyles, eating habits, and increased life expectancy
• Consumer needs and expectations for foods that have reduced levels of calories, fat, and
additives, while being natural, organic, or “healthy”
• Climate changes as well as associated natural environmental stresses, which may induce
biological changes and lead to new pathogens
• Decreases in numbers of people directly involved in food production
• Higher numbers of consumers at risk for infection
• Emerging pathogens that may be resistant to control or are more virulent
• Advances in microbial detection methods
• Less food handling education and training of food workers and consumers
• Increased interest, awareness, and scrutiny of food safety issues by consumers, news
media, and activist groups

It is widely accepted that, as the world population increases and the standard of living is
improved, meat consumption also increases (Rostagno, 2009). Increases in meat consumption are
also associated with urbanization, higher disposable income, and the desire for a greater variety
in the diet (Sofos, 2008). Although meat consumption may be approaching saturation levels in
developed countries, consumers in such countries continue to express a desire for foods: (1) with no
additives or chemical residues; (2) exposed to minimal processing; (3) that are convenient and need
little preparation; (4) that are safe; and, (5) that are affordable. In general, economically developed
societies have undergone major changes in demographics, population numbers, food preferences
and expectations, lifestyles, life expectancy, and educational experiences (Sofos, 2008, 2009).
Food safety risks increase as consumers become more sensitive to microbial infection; as the
aging population increases in numbers, so does the sensitivity to infection. Our society is composed
of more immunosuppressed and chronically ill persons who are more sensitive to foodborne illnesses
and their consequences than ever before. Another issue that affects food safety challenges is that the
number of people involved in direct food production through agriculture is decreasing dramatically
as our total population has become more urban. Furthermore, the composition of households has
changed in ways that have led to changes in lifestyles and associated food preferences, food handling
practices, and expectations or demands on our food supply. Examples of this include the following:

• Consumers eat more meals outside the home.

• The number of “take home” meals has increased.
• The use of prepared or pre-packaged salads, meals, and other food items, which need mini-
mal preparation and offer convenience, has increased.
• More consumers prefer or follow special diets.
• Present-day consumers are exposed to limited education relative to proper food handling
practices.
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 209

• An increasing number of consumers prefer minimally processed foods of low fat, reduced
salt and other additives, fresh-like properties, convenience, and long shelf life.

However, some of these preferences may be in conflict with food safety. For example, a lower
fat content in a food may be associated with higher moisture, which leads to dilution and further
reduction of the already lower levels of salt and other additives. This further dilutes the preservative
contribution of salt and other additives in a product that may also be minimally processed and needs
more attention. Thus, modern consumer preferences may lead to new or increased food safety risks,
which become challenges to be addressed by those involved in assuring the safety of our food sup-
ply (Samelis and Sofos, 2003; Sofos, 2008, 2009).
In general, approaches to pathogen control may be complicated or fail due to changing needs
and expectations from consumers, projected increases in meat consumption worldwide, expanded
use of sub-lethal multiple antimicrobial hurdles in food processing and preservation, and the associ-
ated potential for stress-adaptation and cross-protection of pathogens exposed to sub-lethal stresses.
These issues require optimization of multiple antimicrobial hurdles due to the increasing numbers
of consumer groups at risk for severe foodborne illness, the need to follow animal welfare practices
during production and processing of foods, and the increasing preference of consumers for organic
or natural products (Sofos, 2008, 2009).
A major meat safety issue is the need to control traditional as well as “new” or “emerging” patho-
gens, which may be of increased virulence, present at low infectious doses, or resistant to antibiotics
or food-related stresses. Other microbial pathogen-related concerns include cross-contamination of
foods such as produce and water with enteric pathogens of animal origin, and food animal manure
disposal and treatment issues. Other issues and challenges include food additives and chemical
residues, animal identification and traceability issues, the safety and quality of organic and natural
products, products of food biotechnology or genetically modified organisms (GMO), and intentional
bioterrorism. As BSE has come under control, efforts should continue for its eradication. Viral
agents affecting food animals, such as avian influenza, will always need attention for prevention
or containment (Sofos, 2008, 2009). The potential role of improved animal welfare during animal
source food production in the safety of derived food products needs to be considered, explored, and
improved as necessary.
Additional information on microbial pathogens, including major and emerging pathogens, and
their control, as well as other animal source food safety issues, such as chemical additives, GMOs
and materials, and transmissible spongiform encephalopathies has been reported by Koutsoumanis
and Sofos (2004), Koutsoumanis, Geornaras, and Sofos (2006), Sofos (2002, 2005, 2006, 2008,
2009), Sofos and Geornaras (2010), and Stopforth and Sofos (2006).

MiCRObiAl FOOD SAFETY AND ANimAl WElFARE

General
Food safety is a global issue and, in addition to appearance, sensory, and nutritional characteristics,
may be considered as a measure of food quality. Food safety is greatly influenced by the extent of
carriage and transmission of foodborne pathogens by animals. Animals are always colonized with
microorganisms including pathogens, and carry them in on various external surfaces, including
feces from the gastrointestinal tract, hide, hair, fleece, or feathers; therefore, the concept of zero-risk
food is nonexistent even when foods are properly and adequately processed. The food industry con-
tinually strives to minimize, reduce, or prevent foods from carrying microbial hazards.
Modern animal production practices involve growing or feeding large numbers of animals
together, in enclosed or limited environments, and sometimes in nonhomogeneous groups. Such
intensive rearing conditions lead to animal welfare concerns due to stressful conditions associ-
ated mostly with restricted housing conditions and confined management practices. Important food
safety issues associated with animal welfare include increased transmission of foodborne pathogens
210 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

including bacteria, viruses, parasites, antimicrobial resistant pathogens, and genetic determinants
of resistance (Rostagno, 2009).
Intensive livestock production systems (i.e., industrial animal agriculture) are common in devel-
oped countries and generate the bulk of the food consumed. However, their implementation has
raised various ethical, societal, and practical concerns. A recent review by Davies (2010) concluded
that available evidence does not support the hypothesis that intensive pork production practices
have increased the risk for foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, Yersinia, and
Listeria, which are commensals in pigs, or that alternative systems of animal production reduce
the risk of animal colonization with pathogens (Davies, 2010). Concurrently, there is evidence that
such production systems have contributed to the improvement of the safety of foods, such as pork,
with regard to parasitic and bacterial pathogens (Davies, 2010). The virtual elimination of parasites
such as Trichinella spiralis, Toxoplasma gondii, and Taenia solium from pigs in the United States
is attributed to modern intensive rearing systems. Increased animal herd size has also been pre-
sented as a risk factor for animal colonization with pathogens but, according to Davies (2010), there
is no convincing evidence that it is a risk factor for Salmonella prevalence in swine herds.
The potential link between animal welfare and animal health with food safety is well recognized
(de Passille and Rushen, 2005; EC, 2000; Passantino, 2009). Improvements in animal welfare have
the potential to reduce on-farm risks to food safety, principally through: (1) reduced stress-induced
immunosuppression; (2) reduced incidence of infectious disease on farms; (3) reduced shedding
of human pathogens by farm animals; and, (4) reduced antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance,
although it is not known how reduced use of antibiotics will affect pathogen carriage in animals.
The issue of humane treatment of food animals is very important and should receive increased
attention worldwide (Grandin, 2006). Evidence suggests that animal stressing may damage meat
quality, and lead to more contamination and cross-contamination with pathogens as it may lead
to increased pathogen shedding. Irrespective of whether good animal husbandry practices make
animal products safer or of better quality, humane treatment of animals is essential and should be
practiced by all involved in animal handling.

Animal Stressing
All food animals experience some level of stress, which may lead to reduced performance standards,
disease conditions, or death, as well as detrimental effects on animal product quality. Among other
consequences, exposure to stress may influence the gastrointestinal tract by disturbing production
and action of endogenous hormones, the stomach pH, and the overall immune system, which may
affect colonization, infection, and shedding of foodborne microbial pathogens. In general, stressed
animals may exhibit reduced performance, health problems or death, and reduced product quality
(Rostagno, 2009).
Common stressors include lack of feed or water leading to inadequate nutrition, heat, cold, over-
crowding which may also occur during loading, transportation, and unloading, as well as improper
handling or contact with humans. Exposure to stressors leads to disturbed homeostasis, and acti-
vated adaptive responses to maintain electrolyte balance (Rostagno, 2009). The disturbed homeo-
static state may then have adverse effects on animal health, as well as yield, quality, and safety of
animal source foods. A reason that food products derived from stressed animals may pose increased
safety risks for consumers is associated with the stress of feed deprivation and transportation of
animals to the slaughterhouse. In general, it is widely believed that the number of animals carrying
and shedding foodborne pathogens, as well as the levels of bacteria in the gastrointestinal system
increase as a consequence of stressing, which may also increase animal susceptibility to infection.
However, these views are based on limited scientific evidence. Thus, firm documentation is needed,
although there is some evidence demonstrating adverse effects on food safety. Results of some stud-
ies suggest increased shedding of Salmonella during transportation of pigs, while other studies have
found conflicting results (Rostagno, 2009). In general, it is difficult to demonstrate a clear relation-
ship between animal stressing and safety of derived products, as the potential mechanisms involved
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 211

are varied and complex. Knowledge of mechanisms involved in stressing animals in ways that lead
to increased food safety risks would allow easier development of interventions against such risks.
Similarly, food safety risks may be increased in animal production systems employing improved
animal welfare conditions, including organic and natural animal production systems. However, it is
a common belief that optimizing animal welfare minimizes losses in yield, quality, and, potentially,
food safety. Both issues need attention and further investigation for clarification.
Since there is limited evidence that stressing animals is associated with changes that may have
a negative influence on food safety through a variety of mechanisms, it is important to explore this
issue through well-designed research. This will allow determination of whether improved animal
welfare has a positive impact on food safety and quality (Rostagno, 2009). Research should also
explore mechanisms involved in increased pathogen carriage and shedding by farm animals when
exposed to stress. As indicated, understanding the underlying physiological mechanisms involved
will allow development of effective approaches to enhance the safety and quality of animal source
foods.

Animal Manure Issues

In addition to direct exposure of animal food products to enteric pathogens residing in or on animals,
such contamination may be introduced to the environment and water and, through these vehicles,
to foods of plant origin, either directly during animal shedding and defecation or through animal
manure used to fertilize soil (e.g., during organic food production). Microbial pathogen outbreaks
associated with contaminated drinking water or consumption of fruits, juices, and vegetables such
as lettuce, spinach, and green onions, appear to be more common in recent years. There are esti-
mates that 80% or more of the illnesses are traceable to animals via water contamination, exposure
of humans to animals at fairs, and contact with untreated manure. Water may be contaminated with
microbial pathogens of concern to humans (Bicudo and Goyal, 2003). Such water may be used to
irrigate food crops or wash and otherwise treat plant food products in the field.
Specifically, pathogens such as Enterohemorrhagic E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella are associ-
ated with illnesses caused through transmission on a variety of food products other than beef, includ-
ing apple juice/cider, alfalfa/radish sprouts, mayonnaise, watermelon, spinach, lettuce, and onions
(www.cdc.gov). Food vehicles for Salmonella outbreaks have included cantaloupes, watermelon,
alfalfa sprouts, tomatoes, chocolate, and dry breakfast cereal, while Shigella has been transmitted
by green onions and lettuce (www.cdc.gov). These events demonstrate the role of environmental and
cross-contamination on transfer of enteric pathogens from their animal hosts to a variety of food
products of non-animal origin (Sofos, 2008).
Animal manure, if not properly composted, processed, and handled leads to environmental pol-
lution. As the world population continues to grow and demand for food increases, the environment
will continue being associated with important international health issues, including food safety. The
impact of meat animals and wild animals and their manure as sources of environmental, water, and
food contamination, as well as direct animal-to-human transmission of pathogens, must be taken
under consideration by those involved in the food industry in general, including producers, regula-
tors, public health agencies, and consumers.
Irrespective of whether wild animals and birds or human negligence contribute to the problem,
the food animal industry must address this issue considering the recent highly publicized outbreaks
of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella in the United States associated with consumption of vegetables
(www.cdc.gov).

ANimAl HEAlTH AND FOOD SAFETY iN ORGANiC AND CONVENTiONAl PRODUCTiON SYsTEms
The safety of produce has become a major concern in recent years, as bacterial pathogen out-
breaks associated with consumption of plant foods have increased in frequency and size. This
development has been associated with increased consumption of uncooked produce and with the
212 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

increase in organic farming practices. Organic foods are “those grown, raised, and processed
without the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and without the use of growth-promoting
hormones and genetic engineering” (Cahill, Morley, and Powell, 2010). Organic produce and live-
stock production systems are becoming more popular in developed countries because consumers
consider them to be healthier or more wholesome than conventional foods (Cahill et al., 2010;
Kijlstra and Eijck, 2006).
Organic livestock production is based on numerous rules developed with the objectives of improv-
ing animal welfare and the environment, and limiting use of medical drugs and pesticides (Kijlstra
and Eijck, 2006). The effects of these rules on animal health have not been well considered or
proven. Disease prevention is anticipated based on reduced stress on animals, optimal quality feed-
stuff, proper feeding, and an increased ability of animals in open-range to deal with health issues
such as infections. However, organically managed animals may face important health problems
associated with access to the outdoors, which increases exposure to disease-causing agents such
as viruses, parasites, and bacteria. Such agents of disease may affect the health of the animals or
become food safety risks. Effective controls are needed to address these concerns and may include
animal breed selection, optimized environmental conditions, vaccination, and use of pre- and probi-
otics (Kijlstra and Eijck, 2006). Overall, the implementation of organic versus conventional produc-
tion systems affects the occurrence of pathogenic organisms (and their development of resistance to
antimicrobial compounds) on livestock and thus indirectly food safety as well as the occurrence of
zoonotic parasites and animal health.

Impact on Food Safety

As discussed by Sofos (2008), the demand for “organic” and “natural” food products is increas-
ing, but their safety and quality, compared to commercially produced foods, will continue to be
controversial among consumers and experts (Winter and Davis, 2006). The reasons that consum-
ers prefer natural beef include absence of added hormones; association with a specific source; no
feeding of antibiotics or animal by-products; humane treatment and handling of animals; animal
production that considers environmental impact; and sustainability of the production system. It
should be considered certain that the popularity of such products will increase; however, the exis-
tence and increased production of natural beef will not solve problems of the world’s hunger and
food safety. According to the Federation of Animal Science Societies (www.fass.org), organic foods
offer the consumer a choice, but there is no evidence of nutritional differences between organic and
conventionally produced meat, milk, and eggs, or that organic foods are safer than conventional
foods. Lund and Algers (2003) reported that, except for parasitic diseases, the health and welfare of
organic and conventional food animal herds are similar. In contrast, some have expressed concerns
that organically grown products carry heavier microbial populations, as well as pathogens. It should
be repeated, however, that a complete conversion to organic or natural agriculture might be impos-
sible considering increases in the human population, urbanization, and needs for efficient food
production (Sofos, 2008). Furthermore, organic and natural food products need to be investigated
thoroughly for their potential effects on human health in comparison with counterparts from con-
ventional agriculture. The issue needs careful and responsible attention and such products should
be researched thoroughly.
One reason that consumption demand for organically produced food is increasing is that many
consumers believe that such foods are healthier or safer than conventional products (Young et al.,
2009). Hermansen (2003) found that retailers in 7 of 12 European countries used “food safety/
health” as their primary argument for promoting and marketing organically grown foods, and 3
of the 12 countries used this as the number two argument. Generally, although the evidence is
scarce, consumers consider organic or natural foods healthier, better tasting, more environmentally
friendly, and safer than foods produced conventionally (Jacob et al., 2008; Sofos, 2008). In con-
trast, it has been hypothesized that organically grown produce is more likely to be contaminated
with pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, and pathogenic E. coli compared to
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 213

conventionally produced counterparts due to the use of animal manure as fertilizer. However, the
evidence in support of this is limited (Vaarst et al., 2005). Various researchers have concluded that
food safety risks should not differ greatly between conventionally and organically produced foods
of plant origin (McMahon and Wilson, 2001; Sagoo, Little, and Mirchell, 2001). Although there
were few pathogens in samples of organic and conventionally grown produce examined, E. coli was
more prevalent in organically grown produce (Mukherjee et al., 2004).
There are aspects of organic animal husbandry, like access to an outdoor run, that can increase
risks to food safety. This includes increased carriage of pathogens on animals and thus increased risk
of transfer to products derived from the same (Rodenburg, van der Hulst-van Arkel, and Kwakkel,
2004). Organic swine and poultry production, involving increased outdoor access, is associated
with issues such as increased parasitic infestation. Greater outdoor access may lead to re-emer-
gence of zoonotic diseases such as toxoplasmosis and campylobacteriosis (Davies, 2010; Kijlstra
and Eijck, 2006). Esteban et al. (2008) conducted a survey of the occurrence of Campylobacter,
Salmonella, Listeria, and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) in 60 flocks of free-range chickens
from 34 farms in northern Spain. Campylobacter, the most prevalent of the four pathogens, was
isolated on 70.6% of the farms, followed by L. monocytogenes (26.5%), and Salmonella (2.9%).
No E. coli O157 or other STEC was isolated. Salmonella was found in the cecal content of only
two birds (2.5%) (both from the same conventional farm), whereas 44 (55.7%) birds were infected
with Campylobacter. The prevalence of Campylobacter, the concentration of lactic acid bacte-
ria, the duration of tonic immobility, and the condition of the breasts and footpads did not differ
between the production systems (Tuyttens et al., 2008). A study by Rodenburg et al. (2004) in the
Netherlands found 13% of 31 organic poultry flocks to be positive for Salmonella and 35% positive
for Campylobacter. Thus, questions exist regarding differences in safety of animal source food
products from free-range and organic production systems (Vaarst et al., 2005). Research is needed
to examine and improve the safety of organically produced foods. Studies should examine pathogen
and disease prevalence, risk factors, and optimization of management practices and control strate-
gies (Kijlstra and Eijck, 2006).

Impact on Antimicrobial Resistance Development

The increasing prevalence and severity of antimicrobial resistant organisms and genetic determi-
nants in the environment need serious consideration in order to maintain the existence of effective
therapeutic agents for human and animal clinical intervention. The development of antimicrobial
resistance in foodborne and clinically important bacteria is gaining attention and becoming a major
challenge. Potential contributors to this concern are the use of antibiotics for therapeutic and non-
therapeutic reasons in animal, plant, and aquaculture food production, as well as their abuse in
human medicine (IFT, 2006). The issue of antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic use in food ani-
mals is complex and heavily debated in the scientific community. The specific concerns with devel-
opment of antimicrobial resistance in foodborne pathogens are as follows: (1) resistant pathogens
contaminating food animals have the potential to be transferred to products derived from the same
and consumed by humans; (2) human use of antibiotics increases the risk of acquiring an infec-
tion with an antimicrobial-resistant pathogen; (3) human infection by an antimicrobial-resistant
pathogen limits treatment options; and (4) antimicrobial-resistant pathogens may develop increased
virulence. Admittedly, resistance of pathogens to antibiotics used in animal production or human
medicine is of major concern and will continue being important in the future for clinical settings
(Doyle and Erickson, 2006). As the issue is complex and there are no simple solutions, it is recom-
mended that one not over-use or abuse antibiotics in food production and human medicine. Prudent
use is recommended and actions should consider individual situations based on the principles of risk
analysis (Sofos, 2008, 2009).
One major difference between organic and conventional production systems is the use of antimi-
crobials, which could influence the susceptibility of foodborne pathogens. Organic food production
emphasizes animal welfare and ecosystem sustainability while minimizing the use of nonfarm
214 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

inputs such as use of antimicrobials, which could influence the resistance profile of foodborne
pathogens (Young et al., 2009). Antimicrobials are used only for treatment of animal illness when
other options fail, and not for prophylactic reasons. The use of growth-promoting hormones is
also prohibited and organic animal production requires daily outdoor access and consumption of
organic feed. There are further concerns that animal stressing associated with conventional produc-
tion systems changes the composition of microflora associated with animals, including selection of
antimicrobial-resistant pathogenic strains (Rostagno, 2009).
Jacob et al. (2008) reviewed literature that compared the antimicrobial susceptibility of foodborne
bacterial pathogens from organic and conventional food animal production systems. They found it to
be highly variable in terms of production types and practices and susceptibility associations in only
a few studies that compared truly organic and conventional practices. When statistical associations
were possible, the isolates from conventionally reared animals and their products were more com-
monly resistant than were animals reared organically and free of antibiotics. Additional studies are
needed to better assess public health consequences of antimicrobial resistance and food animal pro-
duction systems, specifically organic or natural versus conventional (Jacob et al., 2008). Foodborne
pathogens developing the greatest antimicrobial resistance include Salmonella and Campylobacter.
However, one study ranked these two pathogens as number 15 and 18 out of 20 in clinical importance
for antimicrobial resistance (Bywater and Casewell, 2000). A meta analysis by Young et al. (2009)
concluded that Campylobacter isolates from conventional retail chicken meat were more likely to
be ciprofloxacin-resistant than those from organically grown broilers. Overall, it was concluded that
more bacterial isolates with resistance to antimicrobials were isolated from conventionally grown
animals, but some resistant strains were isolated from organically grown animals. These findings
should be confirmed with additional research.
It should be noted that antibiotic-resistant foodborne pathogens of concern in food that is cooked
or processed also show greater resistance to sanitation and food preservation than do their antibi-
otic-sensitive counterparts. The need to consider whether antimicrobial-resistant pathogens exhibit
increased resistance to subsequent food-processing stresses (such as antimicrobial applications,
cooking, etc.) is well accepted in the scientific community (Lou and Yousef, 1997; Skandamis et
al., 2008; Stopforth et al., 2003), yet there are limited studies specifically documenting increased
resistance of antibiotic-resistant pathogens from animal sources to food-processing related stresses
(Arthur et al., 2008; Stopforth et al., 2008). Arthur et al. (2008) reported that the antimicrobial inter-
ventions in place at a beef processing facility did not differ in the ability to reduce resistant and sus-
ceptible Salmonella strains. Stopforth et al. (2008) found no significant differences in overall heat
resistance between resistant and susceptible Salmonella strains in ground beef although susceptible
strains had slightly higher heat resistance at certain temperatures. Thus, increased resistance of
antibiotic-resistant foodborne pathogens to subsequent food-processing stresses is not well estab-
lished and needs further investigation to assess if there is an actual rather than a perceived risk.

Impact on Animal Health

The actual evidence suggesting that organic livestock production is more or less detrimental to
the overall animal health and welfare in comparison with conventional systems is limited (Hovi,
Sundrum, and Thamsborg, 2003). However, there is strong evidence that parasite control is of
greater concern in organically managed animals (Kijlstra, Meerburg, and Mul, 2004). Nematode
parasites of domestic food animals pose the greatest worldwide disease problem in grazing livestock
systems (Waller and Thamsborg, 2004). The outdoor production of pigs (primarily sows), dairy
cattle, and laying hens is associated with higher prevalence of parasites compared to conventional
intensive indoor production (Thamsborg, Roepstorff, and Larsen, 1999). Parasites and associated
zoonotic diseases are more prevalent in organic production systems compared with conventional
systems due to two major factors: (1) withdrawal of preventative drug therapy to control parasites
(Thamsborg et al., 1999); and (2) increased exposure of animals to vehicles transferring disease
via increased outdoor/open range exposure (Meerburg et al., 2004). Rodents serve as vehicles of
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 215

transfer of pathogens and parasites to animals and derived products within and between farms.
Therefore, effective rodent management programs should be established in food animal growing
facilities. This is more difficult to accomplish in open production systems such as those following
organic guidelines (Meerburg et al., 2004, 2009). Therefore, there is a need for development and
implementation of acceptable control strategies in organic production systems. It is worthwhile to
consider that indoor housing of food animals in intensive animal production systems has resulted in
effective control of certain pathogens such as Toxoplasma and Trichinella in swine (Kijlstra et al.,
2004). Livestock-production systems operating under better animal welfare guidelines need extra
measures to control transfer of parasites. Such measures may include preventing access of rodents
and cats to the premises (Kijlstra et al., 2004).

MANAGiNG ANimAl HEAlTH AND WElFARE AND FOOD SAFETY

Regulations, Standards, and Trade Implications Regarding
Food Safety and Animal Health and Welfare
Animal producers and processors are constantly faced with meeting or exceeding regulatory guide-
lines and market acceptability standards for their products (Farm Foundation, 2006). Food safety
and animal health and welfare are being linked in various government agricultural best practices
policies and quality management programs, which are also available through animal producer asso-
ciations such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and National Pork Producers Council in
the United States. Food safety and animal health and welfare are closely related issues. However,
the priorities of each are sufficiently different to warrant separate strategies. Although there are
similarities in the approaches that address animal health and food safety, it is important to rec-
ognize the conflict in objectives and desired outcomes. Finding approaches to reduce the conflict
between regulations and standards governing food safety and animal health and welfare is essential
as there is a push for international standards governing animal health and welfare and the quality
of products derived from them.
Regulations or standards developed to improve food safety can have a direct impact on animal
health and welfare and vice versa and they can sometimes benefit all three simultaneously. However,
the impact can also be negative, creating potential conflicts among regulatory objectives (de Passille
and Rushen, 2005). Some examples are as follows:

• EU legislation reduces use of fully slatted flooring in pig houses because of their impact
on animal welfare (discomfort to animals); however, research revealed that slatted floors
reduce the incidence of Salmonella infections in growing pigs and help reduce ammonia
emissions from pig houses (Ni et al., 1999; Nollet et al., 2004).
• In Canada, some jurisdictions limit the access grazing cattle have to natural water sources
in order to prevent water contamination; however, this restricts the cattle’s access to fresh,
clean water and areas of shade, both negatively impacting animal welfare.
• In many countries, there are bans on the use of antibiotics as growth promotants due to
the fear of antibiotic residues in food from these animals; however, this may result in an
increased incidence of gastrointestinal illnesses.

There are many more examples of perceived conflicts between food safety, animal health, and
animal welfare models that often do not actually occur. The assumption that free-range housing of
hens results in increased fecal contamination of eggs is questioned after one study found that the
use of free-range eggs was associated with a reduced risk of salmonellosis (Casewell et al., 2003).
There is, however, a tendency to consider that food safety and animal health are more important
than animal welfare and that animal welfare can be neglected to ensure the primacy of the other
two issues (Sorensen, Sandoe, and Halberg, 2001). There is increasing pressure to harmonize ani-
mal welfare, animal health, and food safety regulations and standards especially in the context of
216 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

international trade (Baines and Davies, 2000). Modern consumers require a wide variety of foods
throughout the year. In order to meet these demands, foods are sourced globally, which presents
challenges for ensuring that the products are produced under best practices for animal health and
welfare and are of acceptable quality and safety. Good agricultural practices (GAPs) and sanitary
and phytosanitary standards (SPS) affecting animal health and welfare and hazard analysis and
critical control point (HACCP) systems affecting product safety and quality have become part of
most trade agreements, but the dispute over implementation and standards has and can result in
trade restrictions and embargos. These issues will continue to be a cause of concern and become
more complicated and difficult to navigate as global trade expands unless there is harmonization
of standards and enforcement thereof. It is of paramount importance that animal welfare standards
be developed to be consistent with animal health and food safety standards. The complexity of
resolving the conflicts in regulations and standards governing animal welfare, animal health, and
food safety may be associated with how animal welfare is approached. Currently, focus is given to
logistic-based criteria (design and engineering) as opposed to animal-based criteria (de Passille and
Rushen, 2005). Rethinking the way we measure animal welfare may allow a resolution for many
(although not all) of its conflicts with animal health and food safety.

Improving Animal Health and Welfare to Complement Food Safety

There are many instances in which the regulations and standards to improve animal welfare are in
conflict with those to meet animal health and food safety requirements. However, in order to move
forward with harmonizing these issues, there is a need to consider aspects of these issues that are
complementary rather than conflicting. In general, the relationship between animal welfare, animal
health, and food safety has two common scenarios: (1) poor animal welfare results in poor animal
health and a higher risk for poor food quality and safety (de Passille and Rushen, 2005); and (2)
improved animal welfare results in improved animal health, reduced need for antibiotics, and a
lower risk for development of antibiotic resistance in foodborne pathogens (Regula et al., 2003).
Animal welfare is based on the state of biological needs of the animal and aims to provide
all livestock with conditions of life that are harmonized with their innate behavior (Bracke et
al., 2001). Typically, assessing animal welfare has been oriented toward logistic-based criteria
(design and engineering of animal welfare systems) rather than animal-based criteria (animal
health). Logistic-based criteria include: (1) the selection of animal breeds; (2) animal housing
and transportation; (3) management or stockmanship; (4) diet and nutrition; and (5) veterinary
care. These criteria are easier to measure and audit than animal-based criteria and thus are
favored as a means of assuring animal welfare. The drawback to such a system is limited evi-
dence establishing a direct correlation between the criteria and overall welfare of the animal.
There are standards developed for “organic” livestock production, yet there is no assurance that
the standards actually improve animal welfare (Maine, Webster, and Green, 2001). This point
is further strengthened if one considers welfare standards from one country that differ vastly
in the logistic-based criteria, which makes it impossible to base animal welfare standards on
these criteria. The logistic-based criteria are somewhat inflexible as they relate to design or
engineering elements and could more often than not be the source of conflict with regulations or
standards relating to food safety since animal welfare is about adaptation processes and adapt-
ability. Thus, the emphasis on monitoring animal welfare should be on animals deviating from
an acceptable standard of health (von Borell, 2000). Use of animal-based criteria relates more to
management practices and techniques and relies on measuring the actual condition of the ani-
mal. With this type of system, animal health becomes the indicator of animal welfare and a reli-
able quantitative measure of problems to allow food safety and animal welfare standards to be
balanced. Other criteria for assessing animal welfare include behavioral measures, physiological
measures, immune measures, incidence of health problems, and production levels. A good basis
for developing a system measuring animal-based criteria is the “Five Freedoms,” which state
that animals should be free from (Webster, 2001): (1) thirst, hunger, and inappropriate feed;
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 217

(2) physical and physiological discomfort; (3) pain, injury, and diseases; (4) fear, distress, and
chronic stress; and (5) physical limitations to express normal behavior. De Passille and Rushen
(2005) proposed the concept of measuring animal health as an indicator of animal welfare;
however, there is a need to establish a critical mass of science-based results for a meaningful
understanding of how frequency and type of disease affects animal welfare. Until such a sys-
tem is developed, it is necessary to improve logistic-based criteria for improving animal health
and welfare. Of the logistics-based criteria, the following can be improved to increase overall
animal health and welfare, as well as quality and safety of the resulting food products (Kijlstra
and Eijck, 2006).

Breeding
Disease prevention in livestock production may be improved by selecting appropriate breeds of ani-
mals with resistance characteristics (Magnusson, 2001). Strategies for improved disease resistance
in livestock production include: (1) recording disease incidence in progeny and selection of parents
that produce progeny with the lowest incidence; (2) using breeds possessing major histocompatibil-
ity-complex antigens associated with resistance to disease; and (3) identification and use of highly
heritable gene markers for immune parameters for resistance to disease. An effective example of
such strategies is genetic control of parasitic diseases in sheep (Windon, 1996) and poultry (Gauly
et al., 2002).

Feeding
Almost all nutrients in the diet have a critical role in maintaining “optimal” immune responses
in animals and deficiencies or excessive intakes may negatively affect the immune response of an
animal to pathogens (Field, Johnson, and Schley, 2002). Intestinal parasites have deleterious effects
on an animal’s nutrition status and malnutrition of animals predisposes them to intestinal parasitic
infections (Koski and Scott, 2001). Animal diets and dietary practices must be optimized for spe-
cific livestock production systems to enhance the animal’s immune system and thereby improve its
overall health and the safety and quality of the resulting food.

Housing and Transportation

A major topic regarding animal welfare is the effect of outdoor versus indoor housing on the qual-
ity of the animal’s life and its immune status. Housing and transportation of animals should: (1)
be comfortable; (2) be clean; (3) minimize stress and fear; (4) minimize pain and injury; and (5)
minimize exposure to parasites and pathogens. While outdoor access provides an animal with its
natural habitat and ability to express normal behavior, its impact on animal health may be negative
since the animal is exposed to parasites and pathogens in the environment (Hoglund, Nordenfors,
and Uggla, 1995; Kijlstra et al., 2004; Permin et al., 1999). Housing poses a challenge in strategies to
improve animal welfare (comfort). For example, deep litter for pigs is comfortable, but also provides
a source of pathogens and air pollution. However, this is one area where management techniques
are complementary for animal health and welfare and food safety if risk to animal health is reduced
by changing the litter or adding fresh layers on the surface of existing litter (Basset-Mens and van
der Werf, 2005).

Medication
There are two major challenges regarding animal welfare in livestock production systems that opti-
mize animal health and food safety through control of zoonotic disease: (1) chemical residues in
foods from use of antiparasitic agents and antibiotics; and (2) development of antibiotic resistance
from therapeutic and subtherapeutic use of antibiotics for disease control. A strategic focus on
animal husbandry and management practices that minimize or replace routine use of medicinal
therapies and prophylaxis is needed to control disease in animals while alleviating concerns among
consumers regarding chemical residues and antibiotic-resistant organisms.
218 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

HARmONiZiNG ANimAl HEAlTH AND WElFARE AND FOOD SAFETY THROUGH A

HAZARD ANAlYsis CRiTiCAl CONTROl POiNT (HACCP)-BAsED APPROACH
To ensure the complementarity of regulations and standards between food safety and animal health
and welfare as proposed earlier, it would be beneficial to evaluate the two issues together. While
food safety is currently evaluated and monitored in a well-organized manner, animal health and
welfare are regulated more haphazardly. Food safety considers product quality and safety (from a
microbiological, physical, and chemical standpoint) through approaches based on hazard analysis
critical control point (HACCP) principles from farm to table. However, animal welfare, animal
health, and food safety are also primary issues in policies, retailer strategies, and consumer con-
cerns. Among producers in the food chain, there is a need to introduce the concept of process
quality in the production sector as it relates to animal welfare (Vaarst et al., 2005). Moreover, it
is rational to incorporate animal health, animal welfare, and food safety at the production level
into one HACCP-based program since (Noordhuizen and Metz, 2005): (1) hazards in any of these
areas are predominantly multicausal; (2) focus must be on risk identification and management; (3)
HACCP principles may compromise hazard and risk identification; (4) production processes can be
brought under control more efficiently; and, (5) final product quality can be assured more effectively
than if each of these aspects is approached separately. The HACCP concept is a program based on
preventative measures dealing with hazard and risk identification, process analysis, designation of
critical control points, monitoring of control points, and documentation and verification of the pro-
gram (Ropkins and Beck, 2000). The seven principles of HACCP adapted to livestock production
are as follows (Cullor, 1997):

1. Draw detailed descriptions of the production process using flow charts.

2. Identify and evaluate potential hazards and risks related to the hazards during the produc-
tion process.
3. Determine critical control points (CCPs) in the production process where such risks can be
controlled.
4. Specify when the CCPs are under control by setting standards, criteria, and tolerances
(limits).
5. Design an on-farm monitoring system involving CCPs to check whether all specifications
are being met.
6. Determine corrective actions for events where CCPs exceed their tolerances (limits).
7. Verify the plan using additional information or actions.

There have been increasing attempts in recent years to develop HACCP-based approaches look-
ing to integrate animal health and welfare with food safety at the production level (Grandin, 2004;
Noordhuizen and Metz, 2005; Sorensen et al., 2006). Quality assurance (QA) programs have been
developed in recent years through collaborative efforts by industry and consumers to demonstrate
wholesomeness, quality, and safety of food products (Mench, 2003; Webster, 2005). Although
these programs focused primarily on food safety, they are considered appropriate for application to
other goals such as animal welfare and animal health. However, there is a consensus that there is
insufficient information about the interaction of animal health and welfare and food safety to fully
implement an HACCP-based system. Yet, there is ongoing research regarding the assessment of
risks to animal health and welfare and identification of CCPs where there is high risk and where
control may be needed in the production sector. Grandin (2004) has outlined some of the CCPs that
may be used in monitoring animal welfare in the development of an HACCP-based animal-welfare
auditing scheme that includes, for example: (1) type of housing; (2) quality and functionality of
euthanasia equipment; and (3) access to functional and well-maintained water and feeding equip-
ment. These are but a few of the CCPs for animal welfare in the production sector. Using the list of
CCPs Grandin (2004) proposed for different production sectors at the farm level, CCPs for animal
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 219

health and food safety could be integrated to find areas of complementarity as a starting point for
a comprehensive HACCP-based program. Sorensen et al. (2006) consider the development of an
HACCP-based system by the production sector to be too extensive and the number of necessary
control points too numerous to be operable. Undoubtedly, development of an HACCP-based farm
management system would be expensive. In addition, Lievaart et al. (2005) states that introduction
of HACCP-based programs will not run smoothly for a number of concerns of producers that: (1)
are not willing to change routine practices; (2) need explanation of the ultimate goal; (3) need to be
convinced that quality control will help reduce quality failure costs and improve market retention
instead of increase profits and expand market segments; and (4) need to be convinced that such a
system would provide early warning of impending problems and result in saving losses due to dis-
ease through risk implementation strategies. These are likely challenges that the livestock industry
would encounter outside of the complexity associated with designing such a system, yet the per-
ceived benefit of integrating animal health and welfare and food safety into one monitoring program
is evident. Sorensen et al. (2006) proposed a compromise to develop a generic set of hazards and
risk factors for the production sectors, and to develop CCPs, critical levels/tolerances, and correc-
tive actions for the specific farm rather than for a generic HACCP-based farm management system.
With such a system, the number of hazards will be reduced to a few with controllable risk factors
and residual risk factors will be controlled by good manufacturing practices (GMPs) without CCPs.
Until more is known about the effect of animal health and welfare on food safety, the implementa-
tion of an all-encompassing HACCP-based system seems unfeasible. However, any management
system should be based on generic GMPs with a few of the high-risk hazards controlled by HACCP-
like CCPs, alarm levels/tolerances, and corrective actions.

SUmmARY AND FUTURE OUTlOOK

Maintaining the safety of the food supply is essential to all countries and the livestock industry spends
significant resources in assuring consumers that their products are safe and wholesome. However,
industry, government, and consumers are increasingly aware that animal health and animal welfare
issues are closely linked to food safety. The processing sectors have adopted quality assurance and pro-
cess control strategies, such as HACCP, that reduce food safety risks and provide public confidence in
product quality. Nevertheless, there are concerns that process quality in the production sector involving
rearing of livestock for food does not demonstrate “due diligence” in managing animal health and wel-
fare. The production sector has adopted and consistently applied quality assurance programs and GMPs
to address process quality, but without established “standards,” such programs are very subjective and
their impact is too difficult to measure. The management of food safety and animal health and welfare
from farm to table requires coordination and integration that is simply not provided by the current
regulatory framework or policies. The priorities of food safety and animal health and welfare are often
very different. However, approaches to reduce the conflict between regulations and standards governing
food safety and animal health and welfare are essential to development of national and international
standards governing animal health and welfare and the quality and safety of their products.
An ideal approach to harmonize animal health, animal welfare, and food safety would be through
implementation of an HACCP-based program focused on preventative measures dealing with hazard
and risk identification, process analysis, designation of CCPs, monitoring of control points, and docu-
mentation and verification of the program. The concept of an HACCP-based program to assure product
and process quality in the conversion of food animals to food seems unfeasible due to the complexity in
considering all hazards, risk factors, and control points for animal health and welfare and food safety.
Thus, the approach should be centered on areas of complementarity, considering fewer hazards with
controllable risk factors, while the residual risk factors are controlled by GMPs. The hazards and risk
factors should be generic for all types of livestock farms and the CCPs, alarm levels/tolerances, and
corrective actions should be developed for each specific farm. The scientific literature should be used
to determine CCPs for animal welfare, animal health, and food safety, and areas of overlap should be
220 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

prioritized for inclusion in an HACCP-based program. Furthermore, the criteria for assessing animal
health and welfare should be established based on the knowledge that logistic-based criteria (design and
engineering) of housing and transport facilities are often inflexible and unfeasible to replace or change.
Therefore, the focus should be on less subjective and more measurable criteria including behavioral,
physiological, immunological, animal health, and production output level as indices of animal wel-
fare. Management techniques of logistic-based criteria (breeding, housing, transportation, feeding, and
medication) should be based on animal-based criteria. An integrated system based on this approach
would provide measurable feedback and improvements via a set of standards in animal health, animal
welfare, and food safety. These standards will improve the health and welfare of animals and the safety
of their products, as well as consumer confidence in the process of converting animals to food and will
provide a framework for international regulation and trade.
For international acceptance of the standards to improve animal health and welfare and food
safety, the biggest challenge for implementation will be in development and oversight of the pro-
gram across the numerous entities involved in production, marketing, monitoring, regulation, and
trading of animal food products. A short list of the entities required to implement such a system
includes: Codex Alimentarius Commission, World Animal Health Organization, World Trade
Organization, Global Food Safety Initiative, representative bodies for livestock industries (i.e.,
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, etc.), regulatory bod-
ies (United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, etc.), trade bodies
(United States Meat Export Federation, etc.). While not as complex as international trade, the mere
implementation of such a system within a country will require input from various segments of the
food chain from farm to table and require establishment of a body of experts to champion the con-
cept of regulations and standards that harmonize animal health, animal welfare, and food safety.

REFERENCEs
Arthur, T.M., N. Kalchayanand, J.M. Bosilevac, D.M. Brichta-Harhay, S.D. Shackelford, J.L. Bono, T.L.
Wheeler, and M. Koohmaraie. 2008. Comparison of effects of antimicrobial interventions on multi-
drug-resistant Salmonella, susceptible Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7. J. Food Prot. 71:
2177–2181.
Bacon, R.T., and J.N. Sofos. 2003. Food hazards: Biological food; characteristics of biological hazards in
foods. In: Food Safety Handbook, R.H. Schmidt and G. Rodrick, Eds. New York: Wiley Interscience, pp.
157–195.
Baines, R.N,. and W.P. Davies. 2000. Meeting environmental and animal welfare requirements through on-
farm food safety assurance and the implications for international trade. IFAMA Agribusiness Forum,
June, 25, Chicago, IL. http://www.ifama.org/events/conferences/2000Congress (accessed December
12, 2010).
Basset-Mens, C., and H.M.G. van der Werf. 2005. Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming sys-
tems: The case of pig production in France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 105: 127–144.
Bicudo, J.R., and S.M. Goyal. 2003. Pathogens and manure management systems: A review. Environ. Technol.
24: 115–130.
Bracke, M.B.M., J.H.M. Metz, A.A. Dijkhuizen, and B.M. Spruijt. 2001. Development of a decision support
system for assessing farm animal welfare in relation to husbandry systems: Strategy and prototype. J.
Agric. Environ. Ethics 14: 321–337.
Bywater, R.J., and M. Casewell. 2000. An assessment of the impact of antibiotic resistance in different bacte-
rial species and of the contribution of animal sources to resistance in human infections. J. Antimicrob.
Chemo. 46: 643–645.
Cahill, S., K. Morley, and D.A. Powell. 2010. Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers,
Media: Linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture. Brit. Food J. 112:
710–722.
Casewell, M., C. Friis, E. Marco, P. McMullin, and I. Phillips. 2003. The European ban on growth-promoting
antibiotics and emerging consequences for human and animal health. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 52:
159–161.
Cullor, J.S. 1997. HACCP (hazard analysis critical control points): Is it coming to the dairy? J. Dairy Sci. 80:
3449–3452.
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 221

Davies, P.R. 2010. Intensive swine production and food safety. Foodborne Path. Diseas. 8(2): 189–201.
doi:10.1089/fpd.2010.0717.Ahead of print, http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/fpd.2010.0717
(accessed December 20, 2010).
De Passille, A.M., and J. Rushen. 2005. Food safety and environmental issues in animal welfare. Rev. Sci. Tech.
Off. Int. Epiz. 24: 757–766.
Doyle, M.P., and M.C. Erickson. 2006. Emerging microbiological food safety issues related to meat. Meat Sci.
74: 98–112.
EC (Commission of the European Communities). 2000. White paper on food safety. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/
health_consumer/library/pub/pub06_en.pdf (accessed January 4, 2010).
Esteban, J.I., B. Oporto, G. Aduriz, R.A. Juste, and A. Hurtado. 2008. A survey of foodborne pathogens in free-
range poultry farms. Int. J. Food Micro. 123: 177–182.
Farm Foundation. 2006. Food safety and animal health. In: Future of Animal Agriculture in North America,
Chapter 5, pp. 1–26. http://www.farmfoundation.org/projects/documents/Foodsafetyanimalhealth.pdf
(accessed December 2, 2010).
Field, C.J., I.R. Johnson, and P.D. Schley. 2002. Nutrients and their role in host resistance to infection. J. Leuk.
Biol. 71: 16–32.
Gauly, M., C. Bauer, R. Preisinger, and G. Erhardt. 2002. Genetic differences of Ascaridia galli egg output in
laying hens following a single dose infection. Vet. Parasitol. 103: 99–107.
Grandin, T. 2004. Animal welfare audits for cattle, pigs, and chickens that use the HACCP principles of critical
control points. http://www.grandin.com/welfare.audit.using.haccp.html (accessed December 20, 2010).
Grandin, T. 2006. Progress and challenges in animal handling and slaughter in the U.S. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
100: 129–139.
Hermansen, J.E. 2003. Organic livestock production systems and appropriate development in relation to public
expectations. Livest. Prod. Sci. 80: 3–15.
Hoglund, J., H. Nordenfors, and A. Uggla. 1995. Prevalence of the poultry red mite, Dermanyssus gallinae, in
different types of production systems for egg layers in Sweden. Poult. Sci. 74: 1793–1798.
Hoglund, J., C. Svensson, and A. Hessle. 2001. A field survey on the status of internal parasites in calves on
organic dairy farms in southwestern Sweden. Vet. Parasitol. 99: 113–128.
Hovi, M., A. Sundrum, and S.M. Thamsborg. 2003. Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production
in Europe: Current state and future challenges. Livest. Prod. Sci. 80: 41–53.
ICMSF (International Commission for Microbiological Specifications in Foods). 1996. Microorganisms in
Foods 5: Characteristics of Microbial Pathogens. London: Blackie Academic & Professional.
ICMSF (International Commission for Microbiological Specifications in Foods). 2002. Microorganisms in
Foods 7: Microbiological Testing in Food Safety Management. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
IFT (Institute of Food Technologists). 2006. Antimicrobial resistance—implications for the food system. Comp.
Rev. Food Sci. Food Safety 5: 71–137.
Jacob, M.E., J.T. Fox, S.L. Reistein, and T.G. Nagaraja. 2008. Antimicrobial susceptibility of foodborne
pathogens in organic or natural production systems: An overview. Foodborne Path. Disease 5:
721–730.
Kijlstra, A. and I.A.J.M. Eijck. 2006. Animal health in organic livestock production systems: A review. NJAS
Wageningen J. Life Sci. 54-1: 77–93.
Kijlstra, A., B.G. Meerburg, and M.F. Mul. 2004. Animal-friendly production systems may cause re-emergence
of Toxoplasma gondii. NJAS 52-2: 119–132.
Koski, K.G., and M.E. Scott. 2001. Gastrointestinal nematodes, nutrition and immunity: Breaking the negative
spiral. Ann. Rev. Nutr. 21: 297–321.
Koutsoumanis, K., and J.N. Sofos. 2004. Microbial contamination of carcasses and cuts. In Encyclopedia of
Meat Sciences, W.K. Jensen, Ed. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press, pp. 727-737.
Koutsoumanis, K.P., I. Geornaras, and J.N. Sofos. 2006. Microbiology of land animals. In: Handbook of Food
Science, Technology and Engineering, Y. H. Hui, Ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis
Group, pp. 52.1–52.43.
Lievaart, J.J., J.P.T.M. Noordhuizen, E. van Beek, C. van der Beek, A. van Risp, J. Schenkel, and J. van Veersen.
2005. The hazard analysis critical control points (HACCP) concept as applied to some chemical, physical
and microbiological contaminants of milk on dairy farms. A prototype. Vet. Quart. 27: 21–29.
Lou, Y., and A.E. Yousef. 1997. Adaptation to sublethal environmental stresses protects Listeria monocytogenes
against lethal preservation factors. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63: 1252–1255.
Lund, V., and B. Algers. 2003. Research on animal health and welfare in organic farming — a literature review.
Livest. Prod. Sci. 80: 55–68.
222 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Magnusson, U. 2001. Breeding for improved disease resistance in organic farming — possibilities and con-
straints. Acta. Vet. Scand. 95: 59–61.
Maine, D.C., A.J.F. Webster, and L.E. Green. 2001. Animal welfare assessment in farm assurance schemes.
Acta Agric. Scand. 51: 108–113.
McMahon, M.A.S., and I.G. Wilson. 2001. The occurrence of enteric pathogens and Aeromonas species in
organic vegetables. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 70: 155–162.
Mead, P.S., L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, L.F. McCaig, J.S. Bresee, C. Shapiro, P.M. Griffin, and R.V. Tauxe. 1999.
Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 5: 607–625.
Meerburg, B.G., M. Bonde, F.W. A. Brom, S. Endepols, A.N. Jensen, H. Leirs, J. Lodal, G.R. Singleton, H.–J.
Pelz, T.B. Rodenburg, and A. Kijlstra. 2004. Towards sustainable management of rodents in organic
animal husbandry. NJAS 52-2: 195–205.
Meerburg, B.G., G.R. Singleton, and A. Kijlstra. 2009. Rodent-borne diseases and their risks for public health.
Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 35: 221–270.
Mench, J.A. 2003. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: A United States perspective. Anim.
Welf. 12: 493–503.
Morris, J.G. Jr. 2011. How safe is our food? Emerg. Infect. Dis. Ahead of publication. http://www.cdc.gov/eid/
content/17/1/pdfs/10-1821.pdf (accessed December 21, 2010).
Mukherjee, A., D. Speh, E. Dyck, and F. Diez-Gonzalez. 2004. Preharvest evaluation of coliforms, Escherichia
coli, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in organic and conventional produce grown by Minnesota
farmers. J. Food Prot. 67: 894–900.
NACMCF (National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods). 1998. Hazard analysis and
critical control point principles and application guidelines. J. Food Prot. 61: 1246–1259.
Ni, J.Q., C. Vinckier, J. Coenegrachts, and J. Hendriks. 1999. Effect of manure on ammonia emission from a
fattening pig house with partly slatted floor. Livest. Prod. Sci. 59: 25–31.
Nollet, N., D. Maes, L. De Zutter, L. Duchateau, K. Houf, K. Huysmans, H. Imbrechts, R. Geers, A. de Kruif,
and J. van Hoof. 2004. Risk factors for the herd-level bacteriologic prevalence of Salmonella in Belgian
slaughter pigs. Prev. Vet. Med. 65: 63–75.
Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M., and J.H.M. Metz. 2005. Quality control on dairy farms with emphasis on public health,
food safety, animal health and welfare. Livest. Prod. Sci. 94: 51–59.
Passantino, A. 2009. Welfare of animals at slaughter and killing: A new regulation on the protection of animals
at the time of killing. J. Verbr. Lebensm. 4: 273–285.
Permin, A., M. Bisgaard, F. Frandsen, M. Pearman, J. Kold, and P. Nansen. 1999. Prevalence of gastrointestinal
helminthes in different poultry production systems. Brit. Poult. Sci. 40: 439–443.
Regula, G., R. Stephan, J. Danuser, B. Bissig, U. Ledergerber, D.L. Wong, and K.D. Stark. 2003. Reduced
antibiotic resistance to fluoroquinolones and streptomycin in “animal-friendly” pig fattening farms in
Switzerland. Vet. Rec. 152: 80–81.
Rodenburg, T.B., M.C. van der Hulst-van Arkel, and R.P. Kwakkel. 2004. Campylobacter and Salmonella
infections on organic broiler farms. NJAS 52-2: 101–108.
Ropkins, K., and A.J. Beck. 2000. Evaluation of worldwide approaches to the use of HACCP to control food
safety. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 11: 10–21.
Rostagno, M.H. 2009. Can stress in farm animals increase food safety risk? Foodborne Path. Disease 6:
767–776.
Sagoo, S.K., C.L. Little, and R.T. Mirchell. 2001. The microbiological examination of ready-to-eat organic
vegetables from retail establishments in the United Kingdom. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 33: 434–439.
Samelis, J., and J.N. Sofos. 2003. Strategies to control stress-adapted pathogens and provide safe foods. In:
Microbial Adaptation to Stress and Safety of New-Generation Foods, A.E. Yousef and V.K. Juneja, Eds.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 303–351.
Scallan, E., R.M. Hoekstra, F.J. Angulo, R.V. Tauxe, M.–A. Widdowson, S.L. Roy, J.L. Jones, and P.M. Griffin.
2011a. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States — major pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. Ahead of
publication. http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/17/1/pdfs/09-1101p1.pdf (accessed December 17, 2010).
Scallan, E., P.M. Griffin, F.J. Angulo, R.V. Tauxe, and R.M. Hoekstra. 2011b. Foodborne illness acquired in
the United States—unspecified agents. Emerg. Infect. Dis. Ahead of publication. http://www.cdc.gov/
eid/content/17/1/16.htm (accessed December 17, 2010).
Scharff, R. 2010. Health-related costs from foodborne illness in the United States. http://www.­
producesafetyproject.org/admin/assets/files/Health-Related-Foodborne-Illness-Costs-Report.pdf-1.pdf
(accessed December 18, 2010).
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 223

Skandamis, P.N., Y. Yoon, J.D. Stopforth, P.A. Kendall, and J.N. Sofos. 2008. Heat and acid tolerance of Listeria
monocytogenes after exposure to single and multiple sublethal stresses. Food Microbiol. 25: 294–303.
Sofos, J.N. 2002. Approaches to pre-harvest food safety assurance. In: Food Safety Assurance and Veterinary
Public Health; Volume 1, Food Safety Assurance in the Pre-Harvest Phase, F.J.M. Smulders and J.D.
Collins, Eds. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 23–48.
Sofos, J.N. 2005. Improving the Safety of Fresh Meat. Cambridge, England: CRC/Woodhead Publishing
Limited.
Sofos, J.N. 2006. Field data availability and needs for use in microbiological risk assessment. In: Food Safety
Assurance and Veterinary Public Health. Vol. 4. Towards a Risk-based Chain Control, F.J.M. Smulders,
Ed. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 57–74.
Sofos, J.N. 2008. Challenges to meat safety in the 21st century. Meat Sci. 78: 3–13.
Sofos, J.N. 2009. ASA centennial paper: Developments and future outlook for postslaughter food safety. J.
Anim. Sci. 87: 2448–2457.
Sofos, J.N., and I. Geornaras. 2010. Overview of current meat hygiene and safety risks and summary of recent
studies on biofilms, and control of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in nonintact, and Listeria monocytogenes
in ready-to-eat, meat products. Meat Sci. 86: 2–14.
Sorensen, J.T., P. Sandoe, and N. Halberg. 2001. Animal welfare as one among several values to be considered
at farm level: The idea of an ethical account for livestock farming. Acta Agric. Scand. 51: 11–16.
Sorensen, J.T., M. Bonde, T. Rousing, S.H. Moller, and L. Hegelund. 2006. Herd health surveillance and
management in an integrated HACCP based system. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium
on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics. http://www.sciquest.org.nz/elibrary/download/64161/
T3-5.3.6_-_Herd_health_surveillance_and_management_in_an_integrated_HACCP_based_system
(accessed December 11, 2010).
Stopforth, J.D., J. Samelis, J.N. Sofos, P.A. Kendall, and G.C. Smith. 2003. Influence of extended acid stress-
ing in fresh beef decontamination runoff fluids on sanitizer resistance of acid-adapted Escherichia coli
O157:H7 in biofilms. J. Food Prot. 66: 2258–2266.
Stopforth J.D., and J.N. Sofos. 2006. Recent advances in pre- and post-slaughter intervention strategies for
control of meat contamination. In: Advances in Microbial Food Safety, ACS Symposium 931. Recent
Advances in Intervention Strategies to Improve Food Safety, V.K. Juneja, J.P. Cherry, and M.H. Tunick,
Eds. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, Oxford University Press, pp. 66–86.
Stopforth, J.D., R. Shulaim, B. Kottapalli, W.E. Hill, and M. Samadpour. 2008. Thermal inactivation D- and
z-values of multidrug-resistant and non-multidrug-resistant Salmonella serotypes and survival in ground
beef exposed to consumer-style cooking. J. Food Prot. 71: 509–515.
Thamsborg, S.M., A. Roepstorff, and M. Larsen. 1999. Integrated and biological control of parasites in organic
and conventional production systems. Vet. Parasitol. 84: 169–186.
Tuyttens, F., M. Heyndrickx, M. De Boeck, A. Moreels, A. van Nuffel, E. van Pouche, E. van Coillie, S. van
Dongen, and L. Lens. 2008. Broiler chicken health, welfare and fluctuating asymmetry in organic versus
conventional production systems. Livest. Sci. 113: 123–132.
Vaarst, M., S. Padel, M. Hovi, D. Younie, and A. Sundraum. 2005. Sustaining animal health and food safety in
European organic livestock farming. Livest. Prod. Sci. 94: 61–69.
Von Borell, E. 2000. Assessment of pig housing based on the HACCP concept — critical control points for wel-
fare, health and management. In Improving Health and Welfare in Animal Production, EAAP Publication,
Volume 2, H. Blokhuis, D. Ekkel, B. Wechsler, Eds. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Pers
Publ., pp. 75–80.
Waller, P.J., and S.M. Thamsborg. 2004. Nematode control in “green” ruminant production systems. Trends
Parasitol. 20: 493–497.
Webster, A.F.J. 2001. Farm animal welfare: The five freedoms and the free market. Vet. J. 161: 229–237.
Webster, J. 2005. The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: Theory into practice. Rev. Sci. Tech.
Off. Int. Epiz. 24: 723–734.
Windon, R.G. 1996. Genetic control of resistance to helminthes in sheep. Vet. Immunol. Immunopath. 54:
245–254.
Winter, C.K. and S.F. Davis. 2006. Organic foods. J. Food Sci. 71: R117–R124.
Young, I., A. Rajic, B.J. Wilhelm, L. Waddell, S. Parker, and S.A. McEwen. 2009. Comparison of the preva-
lence of bacterial enteropathogens, potentially zoonotic bacteria and bacterial resistance to antimicrobials
in organic and conventional poultry, swine and beef production: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Epidemiol. Infect. 137: 1217–1232.
224 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

CHEMICAL FOOD SAFETY

Steve L. Taylor and Joseph L. Baumert
INTRODUCTiON
While the preceding section of this chapter focused on the very important issues surrounding
microbial food safety of animal-based food products, chemical hazards are also important. Unlike
microbiological hazards, chemical agents do not multiply in foods unless they are associated
with microbial growth. With chemical hazards, the focus is on hazard identification and assess-
ment with control efforts focused on the prevention of their entry into the food with various raw
materials. However, a few potentially hazardous chemical substances are produced by microorgan-
isms sometimes associated with animal-based foods including botulinum toxin from growth of
Clostridium botulinum. This section focuses on the nature of various potential chemical hazards
and their monitoring and control including a focus on food allergens, which have emerged in recent
years as a chemical safety issue that must be controlled through the development and application of
allergen control plans.

CHEmiCAl HAZARDs AssOCiATED wiTH ANimAl-BAsED FOOD PRODUCTs

Foods can be viewed as complex mixtures of chemicals with many being nutrients essential to sus-
tain life. Nevertheless, non-nutrient chemicals can and do exist in foods. Some of these chemicals
can be toxic and hazardous under certain circumstances of exposure, although, fortunately, most
are not hazardous under typical circumstances of exposure. Even some nutrients can be toxic under
certain circumstances of exposure. The central axiom of toxicology is that the dose makes the poi-
son so the amount of exposure to a given chemical is related to the potential hazard. The focus here
is on chemical substances in foods that may pose a risk in animal-based food products under some
reasonably expected circumstances of exposure.
Chemicals in foods arise from two principal sources—naturally occurring substances and manu-
factured chemicals. The naturally occurring substances in foods include the nutrients that have
limited toxicological properties when consumed as part of the diet. However, some naturally occur-
ring substances are potentially hazardous including both naturally occurring constituents of certain
foodstuffs and naturally occurring contaminants. Fortunately, very few such chemicals exist in
animal-based food products beyond the naturally occurring contaminants found in seafood such
as ciguatera toxins in fish and various shellfish toxins, all arising from algae consumed as part of
the food chain in ocean environments. These toxic contaminants will not be extensively discussed
because seafood is not a principal focus of this book.
The major categories of manufactured chemicals that can occur in animal-based food products
are feed additives and veterinary drugs, although food additives, chemicals migrating from pack-
aging materials, and inadvertent or accidental contaminants occurring as industrial and environ-
mental pollutants can also be a concern on occasion. Chemicals produced by reactions occurring
during the processing, preparation, storage, and handling of foods could also be considered artificial
because these processes occur through human intervention.

NATURAllY OCCURRiNG TOXiCANTs iN ANimAl-BAsED FOODs

Few naturally occurring constituents occur in animal-based foods with the exception of certain
hazardous species of marine organisms (Table 10.1). The only known exceptions are certain
naturally occurring plant toxicants that can be ingested by animals feeding on certain nox-
ious weeds; the toxicants can then be passed through to meat, milk, and eggs (Beier and Nigg,
1994). Such situations happen very rarely but are more likely to occur with livestock grazing on
open range in regions where certain noxious weeds are endemic. The levels of alkaloid toxins
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 225

TABLE 10.1
Naturally Occurring Toxicants in Animal-Based
Food Products
Naturally Occurring Constituents
Poisonous animals (puffer fish)
Plant toxicants passed through to meat, milk, and eggs
Constituents causing allergies or intolerances
Milk allergens
Egg allergens
Fish allergens
Crustacean shellfish allergens
Molluscan shellfish allergens
Meat allergens
Lactose for lactose intolerance
Naturally Occurring Contaminants
Bacterial toxins (botulinum toxin)
Mycotoxins (aflatoxins)
Algal toxins (saxitoxins in paralytic shellfish poisoning)

that pass through to meat, milk, and eggs, and the hazards associated with the intake of these
animal-based food products have not been studied extensively. Thus, these situations with a
couple of rare exceptions would best be described as concerns rather than known hazards. The
so-called milk sickness from the ingestion of milk from cows that grazed on white snakeroot is
probably the most noteworthy example of such a situation. Tremetone is the identified toxicant
present in white snakeroot. Notably, Abraham Lincoln’s mother died of milk sickness in Illinois
in 1818, but this illness has not been reported in recent years in the United States (Beier and
Nigg, 1994).
Naturally occurring contaminants can also enter the food supply from natural sources. With ani-
mal-based food products, the principal concerns are bacterial toxins and mycotoxins from molds.
Bacterial foodborne diseases are typically caused by viable pathogenic bacteria that invade cells
and tissues, multiply, and thereby cause inflammation and injury. However, a few bacteria are toxi-
genic and produce exogenous toxins in foods before the food is eaten. In these cases, the ingestion
of the toxins causes the illness even if the bacteria are destroyed in processing or preparation. The
staphylococcal enterotoxins and botulinal toxins are the best examples.
Staphylococcal food poisoning is one of the most common forms of foodborne disease and
is caused by ingestion of staphylococcal enterotoxins. The staphylococcal enterotoxins are pro-
duced in foods by certain strains of Staphylococcus aureus, which grow on foods, including
animal-based food products, under certain conditions such as temperatures between 10°C and
45°C (Wong and Bergdoll, 2002). Upon ingestion, the enterotoxins cause nausea and vomiting
within 1 to 6 hours. Low microgram amounts of the enterotoxins are sufficient to elicit symptoms
(Wong and Bergdoll, 2002). The enterotoxins are small proteins with molecular weights of 25,000
to 29,000 daltons, and nine distinct, but structurally related, enterotoxins have been identified
as being produced by various strains of Staphylococcal aureus (Wong and Bergdoll, 2002). The
enterotoxins are relatively stable to digestion and are quite heat resistant. For this reason, staphy-
lococcal food poisoning is often associated with foods that were cooked after improper storage
at elevated temperatures that allowed the proliferation of S. aureus. Staphylococcal food poison-
ing is prevented by food storage conditions that do not allow S. aureus to grow and produce the
enterotoxin.
226 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Another toxigenic bacterium is Clostridium botulinum, which can produce potent neurotoxic
botulinal toxins under anaerobic conditions (Parkinson and Ito, 2002). Because of the requirement
for anaerobic growth conditions, botulinal toxin formation occurs most frequently in improperly
processed (canned), low-acid foods, including meat products. The vegetative cell of C. botulinum
and the botulinal toxins are easily destroyed by heat. However, the spores of C. botulinum are
heat-resistant, survive improper thermal processing, and germinate and grow under suitable anaero-
bic conditions (Parkinson and Ito, 2002). The commercial canning process is predicated on the
destruction of spores of C. botulinum so that the spores will not germinate, grow, and produce toxin
during storage of the canned product. The botulinal toxins are proteins with a molecular mass of
approximately 150 kDa. Seven toxin types have been identified as being produced by various strains
of C. botulinum (Parkinson and Ito, 2002) with types A, B, and E most commonly associated with
foodborne illness. The botulinal toxins are extremely potent. Clinical symptoms develop within 12
to 48 hours after ingestion of the implicated food. Symptoms include serious neurological manifes-
tations including blurred vision, inability to swallow, aphasia, and weakness of the skeletal muscles
progressing to respiratory paralysis and death. Proper operation of canning equipment is the key to
industrial control points to prevent introduction of botulism into canned food.
Mycotoxins are naturally occurring contaminants produced when certain species of molds grow
on certain foods (Chu, 2002). Typically, the toxin-producing molds grow on cereal grains and oil-
seeds. However, in the case of aflatoxin, ingestion of moldy feed by cows can result in the appear-
ance of an aflatoxin metabolite in the milk. The aflatoxins are produced primarily by fungi of the
Aspergillus genus, namely, A. flavus and A. parasiticus, which are molds that can contaminate
peanuts and corn (Chu, 2002). Aflatoxins B and G are the forms of aflatoxin that have been identi-
fied in legumes and cereals. Dairy cows fed aflatoxin-contaminated grains or oilseeds are known to
release a related form of aflatoxin, aflatoxin M, into their milk. The aflatoxins are potent hepatocar-
cinogens. The control of mycotoxin formation in foods is predicated on the control of mold growth
in stored grains, oilseeds, and other foods. Regarding aflatoxin M in milk, the most critical measure
is to avoid feeding moldy grains to dairy cows.

POTENTiAllY TOXiC MANUFACTURED CHEmiCAls iN ANimAl-BAsED FOOD PRODUCTs

Foods may contain a variety of manufactured chemical substances that are either intentionally or
unintentionally added (Table 10.2). With the intentionally added chemicals, these substances should
be safe under normal circumstances of exposure. However, overuse or inappropriate uses can lead to

TABLE 10.2
Potentially Toxic Manufactured
Chemicals in Animal-Based Food
Products
Food Additives (with overuse)
Sodium nitrite
Agricultural Chemicals
Feed additives
Veterinary drugs and antibiotics
Industrial Chemicals
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Polybrominated biphenyls
Intentional Adulterants
Melamine and cyanuric acid
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 227

hazardous situations. With unintentional manufactured chemicals, the exposure dose is also impor-
tant, but the mere presence of the substance can be considered as a source of concern.

Food Additives
Food additives are intentionally added to foods to provide a wide variety of technical benefits.
Several thousand food additives exist, although many of these chemicals are used in rather small
amounts.
The degree of hazard associated with the food additives used in animal-based food products is
quite low primarily because the safety of food additives is well established (Taylor, 2005). In many
cases, food additives have been subjected to safety evaluations in laboratory animals and use levels
are maintained at exposure doses far below any dose that would be hazardous. Furthermore, many
food additives have long histories of safe use even if classical toxicological evaluations in labora-
tory animals have not always been exhaustively performed. Many of these substances are generally
recognized as safe (GRAS). Finally, the use of food additives is deliberately controlled in manufac-
turing operations. As long as additives are used in accordance with good manufacturing practices,
hazardous situations can be avoided.
The primary hazard associated with food additives is their misuse. An example relating to the
popular processed meat additive, sodium nitrite, will illustrate the consequences of misuse. Sodium
nitrite is a white granular substance easily confused with other salts, including sodium chloride,
which are much less toxic. In the illustrative incident, a small grocery store was repackaging addi-
tives such as sodium chloride, sodium nitrite, and monosodium glutamate (MSG) from bulk con-
tainers into home-use packets (Taylor and Hefle, 2002). Somehow, sodium nitrite was erroneously
labeled as MSG. The mislabeled product was used in hazardous amounts by consumers, resulting in
acute methemoglobinemia and at least one death.

Agricultural Chemicals
An array of various chemicals is used in modern animal agriculture. Residues of these chemi-
cals can sometimes be found in the raw and processed animal-based food products. Public health
authorities evaluate the safety of such chemicals and regulate and monitor their use in food-pro-
ducing animals (Taylor, 2002). Feed ingredients and veterinary drugs, including antibiotics, are the
primary concerns with food-producing animals. When properly used, minimal hazards are posed
by the residues of these chemicals remaining in foods. Thus, the primary approach to lessen this
particular hazard is to use such materials only as recommended.

Feed Additives
Like food additives, substances added to feed do not often cause health-related concerns among
consumers of meat, milk, and eggs. Some years ago, concerns were raised when diethylstilbesterol
(DES) was allowed and used as a growth promoter in beef cattle. Subsequently, DES was shown
to be carcinogenic, and its use as a feed additive was banned. DES is definitely carcinogenic to
humans; its use as a drug to prevent miscarriages in pregnant women was linked to certain types
of cancer in their offspring. However, there is no evidence that the very low levels of DES in edible
beef occurring after the use of DES as a growth promoter pose any carcinogenic risk to humans.

Veterinary Drugs and Antibiotics

A variety of veterinary drugs and antibiotics can be used on food-producing animals. If properly
used, residues in foods are typically low and hazards are small. Some concerns have arisen espe-
cially when these chemicals are used inappropriately. As an example, penicillin is a common anti-
biotic used in animal as well as human health. Some consumers are allergic to penicillin primarily
because of its use in human medicine. The likelihood of allergic reactions to the very low levels of
penicillin residues found in foods is quite remote (Dewdney and Edwards, 1984), but improper use
could lead to higher levels of consumer exposure.
228 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Industrial Chemicals
Industrial chemicals enter the food supply principally as environmental pollutants. Typically, the
residue levels of industrial chemicals found in foods is rather low, resulting in inconsequential haz-
ards. However, on the rare occasions where hazardous levels of industrial chemicals enter the food
supply, devastating consequences can occur from both a health and economic perspective because
of the potential magnitude of the contamination.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs)

Animal food products have become contaminated with environmentally persistent chemicals, PCBs
and PBBs, on several past occasions (Taylor, 2002). PCBs and PBBs are primarily industrial chemi-
cals with PBBs commonly used as fire retardants and PCBs frequently used in transformer fluid.
Residues exist in the food chain as toxic pollutants from industrial practices. PCBs and PBBs are
not particularly worrisome as acute toxicants in foods. However, since they are fat-soluble, elimina-
tion from the body is slow and the chronic effects of exposure to these contaminants in foods are a
concern. Many years ago in Michigan, an incident occurred involving the accidental contamination
of dairy feed with PBBs. This episode resulted in the destruction of many cows and their milk.
While the health consequences remain uncertain, the economic impact was considerable (Reich,
1983). Leaking heat exchangers or transformers are the principal sources of PCBs. The most famous
incident of PCB contamination occurred in Japan when PCBs leaked from a heat exchanger used
in the deodorization process for rice bran oil. Ingestion of the oil was responsible for many cases
of “yusho” (meaning oil disease) in Japan (Miyata, Murakami, and Kashimoto, 1978). The toxic
effects were chronic with symptoms persisting in many of the victims for 8 years or more after
exposure. Such incidents continue to occur periodically although fortunately without the large num-
ber of human illnesses experienced in the yusho incident. Leaking transformers have contributed
to the contamination of feeds with PCBs, which led to the destruction of chickens, eggs, and egg-
containing food products (Taylor, 2002). Clearly, this type of environmental pollution with indus-
trial chemicals can and should be prevented.

Intentional Adulterants
Of course, the intentional adulteration of foods can also result in potentially hazardous chemicals
entering the food supply. The classic example is melamine, which perhaps together with cyanuric
acid was intentionally added to milk and wheat gluten in China to increase apparent protein levels.
These chemicals elicit misleading results in some protein assays based upon nitrogen content.
However, melamine together with cyanuric acid is a rather potent toxic combination of chemicals
that resulted in adverse reactions in infants exposed to the adulterated milk and pets ingesting the
contaminated pet foods (Hau, Kwan, and Li, 2009). Of course, in most countries, it is illegal to add
intentional adulterants to foods although catching the perpetrators can be problematic unless some
knowledge exists to suggest possible analytes for testing.

FOOD AllERGENs FROm ANimAl-BAsED FOOD PRODUCTs

Certain naturally occurring constituents of animal-based food products are capable of causing food
allergies or intolerances. Over the past decade, food allergies and intolerances have been increasingly
recognized as serious food safety issues. Food allergies involve abnormal responses of the human
immune system usually to naturally occurring substances, primarily certain specific proteins, in
foods (Taylor and Hefle, 2001). Food allergies occur only in certain individuals in the population
with an overall estimated prevalence of 3.5 to 4.0% in the United States. These individuals have
immune systems that respond abnormally to specific naturally occurring proteins in foods that most
consumers can ingest with no adverse consequences. Both humoral (antibody- or IgE-mediated)
and cell-mediated allergies occur with foods. Food allergies can involve both animal- and plant-
based foods. The most common foods involved in IgE-mediated allergic reactions are peanuts, tree
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 229

nuts, soybeans, and wheat from the plant kingdom and cow’s milk, egg, crustacean shellfish, and
fish from the animal kingdom. Many other foods can cause allergic reactions on a more infrequent
basis. The symptoms of IgE-mediated food allergies are individually variable ranging from very
mild skin rashes and itching to life-threatening asthma and anaphylactic shock. Rather low levels of
exposure to residues of allergenic foods are sufficient to elicit an allergic reaction in some affected
individuals. Thus, food-allergic individuals must follow rather strict avoidance diets in an attempt to
eliminate all exposure to those foods that trigger their allergic responses (Taylor, Hefle, and Munoz-
Furlong, 1999). In addition to IgE-mediated food allergies, abnormal cell-mediated immunological
reactions can also occur with foods. However, allergic reactions of this type have not been well
studied especially with respect to animal-based food products.
Milk and eggs will serve as the primary examples of commonly allergenic foods of animal
origin. All types of mammalian milks (cow, goat, sheep, etc.) are allergenic and cross-reactions fre-
quently occur between milk from different species (Sicherer, 2001). Eggs from all species of domes-
tic birds (chicken, turkey, duck, goose, etc.) are allergenic and cross-reactions are frequent among
eggs from different species (Sicherer, 2001). Despite serving as excellent sources of protein, meats
such as beef, pork, chicken, and turkey are not considered as commonly allergenic foods. Milk and
eggs are the most common allergenic foods among infants, affecting as many as 2 to 3% of infants
and young children under the age of 3 years (Taylor, 2005). Most milk- and egg-allergic infants
outgrow these particular food allergies. However, milk and egg allergies persist in some individu-
als so the development of oral tolerance is not universal (Skripak et al., 2007; Savage et al., 2007).
Recent evidence has indicated that young children may become tolerant to heated forms (baked) of
milk and egg before becoming tolerant of less well-cooked forms of egg or milk (Lemon-Mule et
al., 2008; Nowak-Wegrzyn et al., 2008).
The primary allergens in milk and eggs are naturally occurring proteins. In milk, the major aller-
genic proteins are casein, β-lactoglobulin, and α-lactalbumin (Besler, Eigenmann, and Schwartz,
2000). These proteins also happen to be the most prominent proteins in milk. For eggs, the major
allergenic proteins are ovomucoid, ovalbumin, ovotransferrin, and lysozyme (Besler, 1999). These
egg proteins are the most prominent proteins in egg white. Egg yolk also contains known allergens,
but they do not appear to be allergenic as frequently. Bovine serum albumin (BSA), a blood protein,
is a minor allergen also found in cow’s milk. However, BSA appears to be the major allergen in
beef. BSA is more heat-labile than other milk allergens, so most allergic reactions to beef can be
prevented by eating well-done beef (Nowak-Wegrzyn and Fiocchi, 2009). A similar protein, chicken
serum albumin (CSA), is the major allergen present in chicken meat. CSA can also be found in egg
yolks and is responsible for bird-egg syndrome, a condition where individuals are allergic to pet or
domestic birds and are reactive to some egg products (Quirce et al., 2001).
Some food-allergic subjects react to rather low doses of their offending foods. For these individu-
als, the implementation of a safe and effective avoidance diet is a major obstacle. Because of these
low thresholds, allergen control has become a key concern in food manufacturing facilities where
multiple formulations are made on shared equipment and in shared facilities.
Food intolerances are also individualistic adverse reactions to foods or food components but, in
this case, they occur through mechanisms that do not involve the immune system (Taylor and Hefle,
2001). Several types of food intolerances are known to occur. However, the metabolic food disor-
ders are the category most frequently associated with animal-based food products. Metabolic food
disorders occur either when individuals respond abnormally to a food component because they have
a deficiency in an enzyme needed to metabolize that substance or because the substance affects
their metabolic processes in an unusual manner. With animal-based foods, lactose intolerance is the
best example of a metabolic food disorder (Suarez and Savaiano, 1997). Lactose is a disaccharide
found in cow’s milk. Lactose-intolerant individuals have low levels of the enzyme, β-galactosidase
(lactase), in their small intestine. As a result, the disaccharide cannot be hydrolyzed into its con-
stituent monosaccharides, glucose and galactose. While glucose and galactose can be absorbed and
used for energy, lactose is not absorbed from the intestine unless it is hydrolyzed. The undigested,
230 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

unabsorbed lactose then enters the colon where resident colonic bacteria convert it to CO2, H2, and
H2O creating flatulence and frothy diarrhea. A very large number of consumers are affected by
lactose intolerance because it is common among Asians, Hispanics, and African-Americans. While
these individuals must follow dairy product avoidance diets, most of them can safely ingest some
lactose in their diets without experiencing adverse reactions. In this case, the threshold dose is much
higher than for IgE-mediated milk allergy.

SUmmARY
Animal-based food products do not frequently present chemical hazards to consumers. The chemi-
cals that are intentionally used in the production of animals or the processing of animal-based
products are generally well evaluated for safety and are of limited concern when used according to
good agricultural or good manufacturing practices. The most significant hazards involve naturally
occurring toxicants, industrial environmental contaminants, and intentional adulterants. Control
measures can be implemented to lessen the risks posed by any of the known chemical hazards. Food
allergies and intolerances represent a well-known risk to the sensitized segment of the consuming
public. However, food-allergic individuals can lessen their risk simply by avoiding products made
with certain animal-based components such as milk, egg, or lactose.

REFERENCEs
Beier, R.C. and Nigg, H.N. (1994) Toxicology of naturally occurring chemicals in foods. In: Foodborne Disease
Handbook, Volume 3, Diseases Caused by Hazardous Substances, Hui, Y.H., Gorham, J.R., Murrell,
K.D., and Cliver, D.O., Eds. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 1–186.
Besler, M. (1999) Allergen data collection: Hen’s egg white (Gallus domesticus). Internet Symp. Food Allergens
1: 13–33.
Besler, M., Eigenmann, P., and Schwartz, R.H. (2000) Allergen data collection: Cow’s milk (Bos domesticus).
Internet Symp. Food Allergens 2: 9–74.
Chu, F.S. (2002) Mycotoxins. In: Foodborne Diseases, 2nd ed. Cliver, D.O. and Riemann, H.P., Eds. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 271–303.
Dewdney, J.M. and Edwards, R.G. (1984) Penicillin hypersensitivity — is milk a significant hazard?: A review.
J. Royal Soc. Med. 77: 866–877.
Hau, A.K., Kwan, T.H., and Li, P.K. (2009) Melamine toxicity and the kidney. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 20:
245–250.
Lemon-Mule, H., Sampson, H.A., Sicherer, S.H., Shreffler, W.G., Noone, S., and Nowak-Wegrzyn, A. (2008).
Immunologic changes in children with egg allergy ingesting extensively heated egg. J. Allergy Clin.
Immunol. 122: 977–983.
Miyata, H., Murakami, Y., and Kashimoto, T. (1978) Studies on the compounds related to PCB. VI. Determination
of polychlorinated quaterphenyls (PCQ) in Kanemi rice oil caused “Yusho” and investigation on the PCQ
formation. J. Food Hyg. Soc. 19: 417–425.
Nowak-Wegrzyn, A., Bloom, K.A., Sicherer, S.H., Shreffler, W.G., Noone, S., Wanich, N., and Sampson,
H.A. (2008). Tolerance to extensively heated milk in children with cow’s milk allergy. J. Allergy Clin.
Immunol. 122: 342–347.
Nowak-Wegrzyn, A. and Fiocchi, A. (2009) Rare, medium, or well done? The effect of heating and food matrix
on food protein allergenicity. Curr. Opinion Allergy Clin. Immunol. 9: 234–237.
Parkinson, N.G. and Ito, K. (2002) Botulism. In: Foodborne Diseases, 2nd ed. Cliver, D.O. and Riemann, H.P.,
Eds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 249–259.
Quirce, S., Maronon, F., Umpierrez, A., de las Heras, M., Fernandez-Caldas, E., and Sastre, J. (2001) Chicken
serum albumin (Gal d 5) is a partially heat-labile inhalant and food allergen implicated in the bird-egg
syndrome. Allergy 56: 754–762.
Reich, M.R. (1983) Environmental politics and science: The case of PBB contamination in Michigan. Am. J.
Public Health 73: 302–313.
Savage, J.H., Matsui, E.C., Skripak, JM., and Wood, R.A. (2007) The natural history of egg allergy. J. Allergy
Clin. Immunol. 120: 1411–1417.
Food Safety Issues in Animal Source Foods Related to Animal Health and Welfare 231

Sicherer, S.H. (2001) Clinical implications of cross-reactive food allergens. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 108:
881–890.
Skripak, J.M., Matsui, E.C., Mudd, K., and Wood, R.A. (2007) The natural history of IgE-mediated cow’s milk
allergy. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 120: 1172–1177.
Suarez, F.L. and Savaiano, D.A. (1997) Diet, genetics and lactose intolerance. Food Technology 51(3): 74–76.
Taylor, S.L. (2002) Chemical intoxications. In: Foodborne Diseases, 2nd ed. Cliver, D.O. and Riemann, H.P.,
Eds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 305–316.
Taylor, S..L (2005) Food additives, contaminants and natural toxins and their risk assessment. In: Modern
Nutrition in Health and Disease, 10th ed. Shils, M.E., Shike, M., Ross, A.C., Caballero, B., and Cousins,
R.J., Eds. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 1809–1826.
Taylor, S.L. and Hefle, S.L. (2001) Food allergies and other food sensitivities. Food Technology 55(9): 68–83.
Taylor, S.L. and Hefle, S.L. (2002) Naturally occurring toxicants in foods. In: Foodborne Diseases, 2nd ed.
Cliver, D.O. and Riemann, H.P., Eds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 193–210.
Taylor, S.L., Hefle, S.L. and Munoz-Furlong, A. (1999) Food allergies and avoidance diets. Nutrition Today
34: 15–22.
Wong, A.C.L. and Bergdoll, M.S. (2002) Staphylococcal food poisoning. In: Foodborne Diseases, 2nd ed.
Cliver, D.O. and Riemann, H.P., Eds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 231–248.
 11 Animal Welfare in the Context
of Ecological Sustainability
Frederick Kirschenmann

CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 233
Principles of Industrialization......................................................................................................... 233
New Strategies: Diversity............................................................................................................... 234
Symptoms of Disorganization......................................................................................................... 235
Solution........................................................................................................................................... 236
New Focus: Replace Current Fossil Energy Technologies to
Enhance Agricultural Production..........................................................................................237
Ethical Principles............................................................................................................................ 237
Summary......................................................................................................................................... 238
References....................................................................................................................................... 238

INTRODUCTION
Animal welfare has largely been addressed as an insular issue. Often it is addressed as a moral obliga-
tion to treat animals “humanely,” and sometimes as a matter of animal “rights,” which suggests that
animals should be treated as non-human persons with certain inalienable rights and therefore should
not be treated as property. Important as these conversations have been (reaching back to ancient times),
it is now a good time to revisit the issue of animal welfare in a new context. The Pew Commission on
Industrial Farm Animal Production recently began that process by addressing the issue of animal wel-
fare in a more complex context that included public health, the environment, and rural economies.
This chapter addresses the issue of animal welfare within the context of future agricultural chal-
lenges and ecological farming systems designed to meet those challenges.

PRINCIPLES OF INDUSTRIALIZATION
The principles of industrialization began to be applied to agriculture as early as the second decade
of the twentieth century. By that time, F.W. Taylor’s “Principles of Scientific Management” had
provided much of the economic rationale for industrial enterprises.
Consequently, industrial agriculture adopted essentially the same goal as other sectors of the
industrial economy—maximum, efficient production and short-term economic return. The means
of achieving that goal also followed the principles adopted by other sectors—specialization, simpli-
fication, and concentration. It was widely assumed that these principles could be applied to agricul-
ture as readily as they had been to other sectors of the economy. An additional incentive to urge the
adoption of these principles was the need to reduce labor requirements on the farm in order to “free”
people to pursue career goals unrelated to animal agriculture and to serve the needs of industrial
manufacturing in urban areas.
The application of these industrial principles to agriculture seemed to work relatively well so long
as key resources (cheap energy, surplus fresh water, and relatively stable climates) were available,

233
234 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

and so long as unintended negative consequences, including environmental degradation, could be

ignored. It is becoming increasingly clear that these key resources will soon dissipate and that we
can no longer ignore industrial agriculture’s unintended negative consequences. Hence, we will be
forced to redesign our agriculture in the future, and animal agriculture will be an integral part of
this transformation.
The industrial principles that currently shape animal agriculture were initially applied to crop
agriculture, and were adopted aggressively after World War II. They were adopted in animal agri-
culture much later—essentially in the 1980s and 1990s. As one example of this transition in animal
agriculture, the number of hogs produced between 1982 and 2002 increased in the United States
by 10%, while the number of hog farms decreased by 76% (USDA/NASS, 2006). This is but one
indication of the increased concentration in animal agriculture during this period.
Throughout the industrial era, modern farming systems have become increasingly specialized,
simplified, and dependent on technological innovation. The principle objectives of this innovation
were to increase labor efficiency, increase the yields of a few crop and animal species, and rely on
control management to solve production problems. Like all other industrial economies, this strategy
was heavily dependent on the availability of two primary reserves—inexpensive natural resources
(principally cheap fossil fuels, abundant fresh water, and rich virgin soils) to sustain the system, and
adequate natural sinks to absorb the wastes from the system. Since both of these resources are now
in decline, agriculture is coming under pressure to design alternative systems.

NEW STRATEGIES: DIVERSITY

One of the new strategies under consideration is to re-introduce more diversity into future farming
systems but to do so with creative new designs that incorporate the principles of ecology, evolu-
tionary biology, and the science of networks. The primary question confronting this post-modern
agriculture is whether a technology based on new synergies between crops, livestock, and other
organisms can now replace fossil fuels and other one-dimensional technologies to increase pro-
ductivity while at the same time beginning the necessary task of restoring the ecology of primary
resources (soil, water, and biodiversity) essential to future productivity.
In an especially poignant essay, Masae Shiyomi and Hiroshi Koizumi state the issues
succinctly.

The development of agriculture in advanced countries from the 1950s to the 1970s occurred largely
because of enormous increases in the use of fossil fuel energy. Specifically, it was supported by the
increased use of fertilizers and agrochemicals, which are produced with fossil fuels, agro machinery
that burns large amounts of fuel, and the breeding of new varieties of crops that are responsive to and
compatible with such chemical inputs and cultural practices. … The use of intra- and interspecific inter-
actions and interactions between organisms and the environment, such as climatic factors and soils, are
given little consideration in the current agricultural system. …Modern agricultural practice has viewed
these interactions as production constraints that must be overcome to make high production possible.
Because the direct effects of fossil fuel energy and its products on agricultural production have been
so powerful, reliable, and dramatic, little attention has been paid to the complex networks of biological
interactions. … [But] the present system of agriculture, which depends on consumption of tremendous
quantities of fossil fuel energy, is now being forced to change to a system where the interactions between
organisms and the environment are properly used. There are two reasons for this transformation. The
first is the depletion of readily obtainable fossil fuel resources. The second is that consumption of fossil
fuels has induced deterioration of the environment. (Shiyomi and Koizumi, 2001, pp. 1–2)

The environmental degradation to which Shiyomi and Koizumi refer will increasingly impose
itself as a central issue for farmers. Farmers in the Mississippi Basin, for example, can no longer
ignore the fact that one of the largest hypoxic zones, in the Gulf of Mexico, is largely due to the
specialized, input-dependent farming practices in the basin. A significant increase in diversification
will be essential to sufficiently scale back nitrogen releases in order to begin shrinking the dead
Animal Welfare in the Context of Ecological Sustainability 235

zone. In addition, shrinking the zone is essential to the future health of aquatic life in the Gulf of
Mexico. Recent studies indicate that in order to meet the target of reducing the hypoxic zone to 5000
km2, set by the federal government at the turn of the twenty-first century, nutrient releases would
have to be cut back by 40 to 45% (Raloff, 2004). No one believes that such a reduction is possible
under current specialized monoculture farming systems.
David Tilman proposes another reason why post-modern farmers may find it necessary to shift
from highly specialized monoculture farming systems to more diverse farming operations.

Although owners of the businesses were probably shocked, I doubt if epidemiologists were surprised
that Hong Kong chicken operations, housing up to a million genetically similar chickens, were suscep-
tible to a rapid and devastating outbreak of disease last year. When those running massive livestock
operations realize that chronic disease and catastrophic epidemics are the expected result of high den-
sities and low diversity, and when society restricts the release of pollutants from such operations, it
may again be profitable for individual farms, or neighborhood consortia, to have mixed cropping and
livestock operations tied together in a system that gives an efficient, sustainable, locally closed nitrogen
cycle. (Tilman, 1998, p. 212)

In 1946, Aldo Leopold had already articulated the ecological principles embedded in Tilman’s
perception. Leopold observed that

The trend of animal ecology shows, with increasing clarity, that all animal behavior-patterns, as well as
most environmental and social relationships, are conditioned and controlled by density. It seems improb-
able that man is any exception . . . I have studied animal populations for twenty years, and I have yet to
find a species devoid of maximum density controls. . . . In all species one is impressed by one common
character: If one means of reduction fails, another takes over. (Leopold, 1946, p. 225; emphasis added)

In other words, nature functions by the ecological principle of diversity and synergy. Through a
long process of natural selection, this is the principle by which nature has developed the capacity
for self-renewal. Moreover, the evolutionary dynamics of nature always seek to re-establish that
synergy when the density of any one species threatens it. Leopold understood that modern industrial
agriculture, which purposely introduced such species densities, was at odds with this ecological
principle and that the principles of ecology needed to be introduced into agriculture, as well as con-
servation, if the self-renewing capacity of the biotic community was to be sustained.

. . . there is urgent need of predictable ecology at this moment. The reason is that our new physical and
chemical tools are so powerful and so widely used that they threaten to disrupt the capacity for self-
renewal in the biota. This capacity I will call land-health. (Leopold, 1946, p. 219)

SYMPTOMS OF DISORGANIZATION
The symptoms of disorganization, or land sickness, are well known. They include abnormal erosion,
abnormal intensity of floods, decline of yields in crops and forests, decline of carrying capacity in
pastures and ranges, outbreak of some species as pests and the disappearance of others without visible
cause, a general tendency toward the shortening of species lists and of food chains, and a world-wide
dominance of plant and animal weeds. With hardly a single exception, these phenomena of disorganiza-
tion are only superficially understood. (Leopold, 1946)

Highly specialized, species-dense monocultures are, in other words, very brittle and very vulner-
able to environmental perturbations. As the capacity for self-renewal of such systems has dimin-
ished, and as farmers rely on one-dimensional, single-tactic technologies to maintain productivity,
the system has become increasingly costly to operate. Even with intense, relatively cheap fossil
fuel-based technologies to sustain the system, farmers on average retain little to no net income (see
Figure 11.1).
236 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

450

400

350

300
$ billions (1999 dollars)

250

200
Cash receipts (adj)
150 Production expenses (adj)
Farm Production Balance (adj)
100

50

2001
2004
2007
1929

1935
1932

1953
1956

1965

1980
1938
1941
1944
1947
1950

1959
1962

1968
1971
1974
1977

1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
(50)

FIGURE 11.1 (See color insert) Farm production balance in the United States, 1929–2007. (From USDA/
ERS. Chart by Ken Meter, 2009.)

Joe Lewis, pest management specialist, and his colleagues, with the Agriculture Research
Service, have recognized the core problem with this approach, not only with respect to pest manage-
ment, but also with virtually all human enterprises—“the attempted solution becomes the problem”
(Lewis, van Lenteren, Phatak, and Tumlinson, 1997). Lewis points out that in pest management, as
in other systems, the basic principle for managing undesirable variables is one of applying a direct
external counterforce against it. However, that approach, he argues, will only secure short-term
relief because within diverse, dynamic ecosystems such strategies are always met by “countermoves
that ‘neutralize’ their effectiveness.”

SOLUTION
The solution, according to Lewis, is to develop “farming practices that are compatible with ecologi-
cal systems” and to design “cropping systems that naturally limit the elevation of an organism to
pest status.” Lewis suggests that we have ignored the inherent capacity of nature to keep pests in
check and to make farming more profitable for farmers.

We historically have sold nature short, both in its ability to neutralize the effectiveness of ecologically
unsound methods as well as its array of inherent strengths that can be used to keep pest organisms
within bounds. If we will but understand and work more in harmony with nature’s checks and balances
we will be able to enjoy sustainable and profitable pest management strategies, which are beneficial to
all participants in the ecosystem, including humans. (Lewis et. al. 1997, p. 12248)

Lewis goes on to point out that such alternative farming practices will require the introduction
of more diversity into the system. At a minimum, farming systems must include the habitat that can
“provide the important refugia for developing natural enemy/pest balances” (Lewis et. al., 1997).
Research that is more recent has confirmed Lewis’ observations. The results of two studies
reported in the July 1, 2010 issue of Nature magazine demonstrate the advantage of increased diver-
sity for achieving more effective pest control. Single-tactic, therapeutic intervention strategies to
control pests tend to “disrupt the communities of those natural enemies—which, in turn, provide
Animal Welfare in the Context of Ecological Sustainability 237

less effective pest control” (Turnbull and Hector, 2010). Furthermore, “intensification of farming
can drastically distort the relative-abundance distributions of natural enemy communities in favour
of a few dominant species” (Crowder, Northfield, Strand, and Snyder, 2010), which increase pest
pressures.
Economic data now confirm that the highly specialized farming systems so endemic to industrial
farming systems have failed farmers economically. Despite the initial appeal of seemingly quick-fix
solutions to pest and other production problems, and despite the obvious labor efficiency achieved
through highly specialized systems, farmers find themselves on technology (Cochrane, 1979) and
pesticide (van den Bosh, 1978) treadmills that have contributed to their economic malaise. Due to
the rapidly increasing expenses of these monoculture systems, net farm income is now lower in
both Canada and the United States than it was in 1929 despite a sevenfold increase in gross income
(USDA/ERS). As farmers are driven out of business, the rural communities that depend heavily
on local agriculturally related economies also decline. Subsequently, the public services on which
farmers depend for their own economic health—public roads, schools, and other services—begin
to deteriorate, placing additional economic burdens on farmers (Ettner, 2010).
As the cost of fossil fuels increases (due to the increased expenses of extracting such depleting
resources), as climate change causes greater instability, and as agriculturally related environmental
degradation becomes increasingly visible, and therefore intolerable to the public at large, the pres-
sure to develop an alternative to specialized, industrial agriculture will increase.

NEW FOCUS: REPLACE CURRENT FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

TO ENHANCE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
It may be critical, therefore, that we now focus a sufficient portion of our agricultural research
agenda on answering the crucial question that Shiyomi and Koizumi raised: “Is it possible to replace
current technologies based on fossil energy with proper interactions operating between crops/live-
stock and other organisms to enhance agricultural production?” (2001, p. 6).
The future of animal agriculture and the issue of animal welfare now need to be explored in this
new context. Perhaps the prescient wisdom of Sir Albert Howard, urging us to use nature as the
model for our agriculture, will now finally appeal to us as never before. As our reserves of cheap
energy, surplus water, and stable climates disappear, we will have to look for new models to redesign
agriculture. Highly specialized, simplified, concentrated forms of agriculture that require excessive
quantities of cheap energy, fresh water, and stable climates will become increasingly dysfunctional
in our new world. Consequently, adhering to the “main characteristics of Nature’s farming” may
serve as a useful guide to design a future sustainable agriculture which will incorporate a more
humane and essential animal component in the system. As Howard put it so succinctly:

Mother earth never attempts to farm without live stock; she always raises mixed crops; great pains are
taken to preserve the soil and to prevent erosion; the mixed vegetable and animal wastes are converted
into humus; there is no waste; the processes of growth and the processes of decay balance one another;
ample provision is made to maintain large reserves of fertility; the greatest care is taken to store the
rainfall; both plants and animals are left to protect themselves against disease.” (Howard, 1943, p. 4)

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
There are obvious ethical principles involved in this vision for agriculture. This transformation
would require what Leopold called the development of an “ecological conscience,” which “reflects
a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the capacity of the land
for self-renewal” (Leopold, 1949). A new agriculture designed along these principles would be
more diverse, animals would be integrated into the landscape in numbers that are appropriate to the
self-renewing capacity of the land, there would be more perennials, and animals would be able to
238 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

perform their normal functions out on the landscape. Such a redesigned agriculture would likely go
a long way toward achieving animal welfare objectives that have been articulated for centuries.

SUMMARY
One suspects that most of us have not yet fully comprehended the scope of the changes that are
in store for our food and agriculture systems as we transition from an industrial economy to an
ecological economy. The end of cheap energy, climate destabilization, and the depletion of fresh
water resources are but three of numerous changes that will likely drive that transformation. How
we manage animal agriculture will be part of that more comprehensive transition. Biological
synergies will likely replace many of our current energy intensive inputs in the new designs of
future agriculture, and animals, integrated into creative new designs that simultaneously address
issues of energy conservation, resource depletion, environmental degradation, and animal welfare.
Numerous models already exist (Kirschenmann, 2007). In her recent book, The End of the Long
Summer, Dianne Dumanoski suggests that we are, in fact, at “a fundamental turning point in the
relationship between humans and the Earth, arguably the biggest step since human mastery of fire”
(Dumanoski, 2009).
It is not hard to imagine some of the transformations that these shifts will have on animal
agriculture. It will be difficult to maintain large numbers of animals in concentrated, confinement
facilities when crude oil reaches $200 or $300 per barrel. By most estimates, when crude oil hit
$147 per barrel in 2007, confinement hog operations were reportedly losing over $20 per hog due
to increased feed and other costs. Animals that were managed in multi-species, intensive rota-
tional grazing systems, in which creative biological synergies, like those on Joel Salatin’s farm,
were the principal management strategy, had a clear competitive advantage in such high-energy
input cost circumstances. More diverse, integrated, crop/livestock systems will likely move toward
more complex, smaller operations or neighborhood consortia rather than uniform, single species,
concentrated operations, since diverse systems tend to be more knowledge intensive and require
more on-site management, all of which will likely transition livestock operations to more decen-
tralized, grass-based systems. While such transitions will not automatically guarantee humane
animal treatment, they lend themselves much more to systems where animals can perform their
natural functions.

REFERENCES
Cochrane, W. 1979. The Development of American Agriculture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Crowder, D.W., T.D. Northfield, M.R. Strand, and W.E. Snyder. 2010. Organic agriculture promotes evenness
and natural pest control, Nature, 466: 109–112.
Dumanoski, D. 2009. The End of the Long Summer. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Ettner, L. 2010. Roads to ruin: Towns rip up the pavement: Asphalt is replaced by cheaper gravel, The Wall
Street Journal, July 17.
Howard, A. 1943. An Agricultural Testament. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kirschenmann, F. 2007. Potential for a new generation of biodiversity in agroecosystems of the future,
Agronomy Journal, 99: 373–376.
Leopold, A. 1946. The land-health concept and conservation. In: For the Health of the Land. J.B. Callicott and
E.T. Freyfogle, Eds. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 218–226.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, W.J., J.C. van Lenteren, S.C. Phatak, and J.H. Tumlinson, III. 1997. A total system approach to sustain-
able pest management, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94: 122243–12248.
Raloff, J. 2004. Massive oxygen-starved zones are developing along the world’s coasts, Sciences News Online,
165(23): 6.
Shiyomi, M., and H. Koizumi, Eds. 2001. Structure and Function in Agroecosystem Design and Management.
New York: CRC Press.
Animal Welfare in the Context of Ecological Sustainability 239

Tilman, D. 1998. The greening of the green revolution, Nature, 396: 212.
Trumbull, L.A., and A. Hector. 2010. How to get even with pests, Nature, 466: 36–37.
USDA/Economic Research Service/ U.S. and State Farm income Data. Available on the ERS Web page at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmIncome/finfidmu.htm#farmnos
USDA/NASS. 2006. Census of Agriculture and Historical Highlights. Washington, DC.
van den Bosch, R. 1978. The Pesticide Conspiracy. New York: Doubleday.
 12 Competition between
Animals and Humans
for Cultivated Crops
Livestock Production and
our Food Supply
Fred Owens and Christa Hanson

CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 241
Does the Worldwide Supply of Arable Land Limit Food Production?........................................... 242
Is All of the Arable Land Available Currently Being Used for Crop Production?.......................... 242
Is Livestock Production Limited by the Amount of Arable Land?.................................................244
Can Land Used for Production of Livestock Feeds Be Converted Readily and
Easily to Produce Food for Humans?.............................................................................................244
Do All the Calories Fed to Livestock Come from Cereal Grains and
Oilseeds or from Products Unsuitable for Human Consumption?.................................................. 245
Are Food and Feed Crops Equally Efficient in Production (Yield per Hectare)
of Calories, Protein, and Other Essential Nutrients?...................................................................... 245
How Efficient Is Production of Various Food Crops?.....................................................................248
How Efficiently Do Livestock Convert Dietary Calories and
Protein from Feeds into Edible Products?...................................................................................... 251
Are Large-Scale Livestock Production Units Inefficient and Irresponsible?.................................. 255
What Is the Root Cause of Starvation in Today’s World?............................................................... 256
What Might One Expect as the Human Population Increases in the 21st Century?....................... 257
Current and Future Concerns.......................................................................................................... 258
Summary.........................................................................................................................................260
References.......................................................................................................................................260

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, people die because affluent individuals consume foods of animal origin (meat, milk).
Feeding animals is wasteful; using food and our scarce land resources that could be used to produce
food for people. Ultimately, consumption of animal products constitutes misuse of the earth’s resources
and leads to abuse not only of animals, but also of starving humans worldwide.

Slightly paraphrased, that is the message advocated by Francis Lappe in her widely marketed 1971
(updated in 1991) book Diet for a Small Planet that is repeatedly iterated by critics of production
and consumption of livestock products. Surprisingly, these concepts have gone largely unchallenged.

241
242 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Yet, this scenario is based on several inherent assumptions that need closer attention and scientific
scrutiny. Does the worldwide supply of arable land limit food production? Is livestock production
limited by the amount of arable land? Can land used for production of livestock feeds be converted
readily to produce food for humans? Do all the calories fed to livestock come from cereal grains and
oilseeds? Are products unsuitable for human consumption fed to livestock? Are food and feed crops
equally efficient in production (yield per hectare) of calories, protein, and other essential nutrients?
How efficiently do livestock convert dietary calories and protein from feeds into edible products?
Are large-scale livestock production units inefficient and irresponsible? In this chapter, these ques-
tions will be addressed in an attempt to appraise whether increases in food prices and worldwide
starvation should be blamed on production and consumption of livestock products.

DOES THE WORLDWIDE SUPPLY OF ARABLE

LAND LIMIT FOOD PRODUCTION?
Millions of hectares of land worldwide are too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too steep, too rocky,
or inaccessible for raising crops. An additional one-half of the land area on Earth consists of mead-
ows, pastures, forests, and woodlands (Table 12.1). This leaves only about 13% of the total land area
on Earth available for crop production. Land suitable for crop production is called “arable.” As a
percentage of the total land area, arable land varies among countries from under 0.01% (Iceland,
Djibouti) to over 55% in the Ukraine, Moldova, and Bangladesh (Nationmaster, 2005).
Food is needed to support a world population that is increasing at a cumulative rate of 1.1% per
year; fortunately, this rate is decreasing and a continued decrease is projected (U.S. Census Bureau,
2010). Within the 48 contiguous states of the United States, special uses (roads, railroads, parks,
defense, and urbanization) occupied 11% of the total land area, a fraction increasing at a rate of 0.1%
per year (Lubowski et al., 2002). Additional cropland is being lost due to erosion and other forms of
land degradation. As outlined by Malthus centuries ago, growth in the human population decreases
the per capita availability of land for crop production, pasture, and forests (Figure 12.1).

IS ALL OF THE ARABLE LAND AVAILABLE CURRENTLY

BEING USED FOR CROP PRODUCTION?
Based on data from 1994 (FAO, 2000) and shown in Figure 12.2, cropland actually exceeds arable
land in North Africa and in the Near East thanks to irrigation. Averaged across the world, only
38% of the arable land currently is cropped, and arable land in more tropical regions of the world

TABLE 12.1
Land Use in the United States and Worldwide in 2005
Area (hectares/person) Percentage of land
Land use U.S. World U.S. World
Total land area 3.02 2.01 — —
Arable land 0.59 0.27 19.51 13.18
Forest land 0.74 0.59 24.70 29.40
Meadows, pastures 0.72 0.52 24.00 25.90
Permanent crops 0.02 0.03 0.56 1.53
Irrigated land 0.08 0.06 2.50 2.94

Source: Central Intelligence Agency. (2009). The World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
fields/2097.html. Accessed April 2010.
Competition between Animals and Humans for Cultivated Crops 243

7
Ag Area US Ag Area World
Pastures US Pastures World
Arable US Arable World

Arable, Forest, & Pasture per capita, acres

6 Forests US Forests World

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

FIGURE 12.1 (See color insert) Per capita availability of arable, pasture, and forestland in the United
States and the world during the past century. (From Food and Agriculture Organization, 2010.)

1200
Rainfed Arable Worldwide, 38% of
arable land is cropped!
1000 Cropped
Hectares, millions

800

600
64%

400
54% 63%
15% 64%
200 15%
160%
0
a
ls

a
t

ic
fic

e
ca

as

ic
ra

p
er
fri

er
ci

ro
rE

m
Pa

m
A

Eu
of
ea

lA

A
n

sia
;N

,E
ra

ra

th
A
ha

sia

nt
ca

or
Ce
Sa

fri

N
A
b-

d
Su

an
N

h
ut
So

FIGURE 12.2 (See color insert) Arable and crop land worldwide and by region. (From Food and Agriculture
Organization, 2000. World Soil Resources Report 90.)

will yield more than one crop each year. Based on these estimates of the arable land supply, crop
production could be increased markedly in sub-Saharan Africa and South and Central America,
where only 15% of arable land currently is being cropped. In other regions of the world, one-half
to two-thirds of arable land is cropped. Arable land may not be cropped for several reasons. These
include inadequacy of an infrastructure to transport and market crops, insufficient financial return
on land and crop investments, trade restrictions or tariffs, lack of agronomic inputs necessary to
enhance crop production, and political instability. As such limitations are resolved and the demand
for and price of food and feed products increase, this untapped production potential certainly can
expand the worldwide supply of food and feed. Nevertheless, based on these data, worldwide crop
production at present is not limited by the amount of arable land available for crop production.
244 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

IS LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF ARABLE LAND?

Because non-ruminant animals (poultry, swine, and humans) are incapable of digesting feeds rich
in fiber, non-ruminants in developed countries generally are fed diets composed of cereal grains
and protein supplements that, in turn, are derived from arable land. In developing countries, non-
ruminants often are fed diverse by-products and wastes unsuitable or not desired for human con-
sumption. In contrast with poultry and swine, herbivores (non-ruminants and ruminants that include
cattle, sheep, and goats) in both developing and developed nations harvest grass and weeds while
foraging on large expanses of non-arable land. Meadows and pastures that comprise approximately
26% of the global land area and a portion of the forested land, an additional 29% of the worldwide
land area (Table 12.1), usually is considered suitable for grazing livestock. Although forests must
be clear-cut for planting crops, forestland need not be cleared for grazing; retaining some trees can
enhance pasture and livestock productivity as reviewed by Belsky, Mwonga, and Duxbury (1993).
In addition, the fibrous residues from cereal grains and oilseed crops produced from arable land
can be fed to and digested by domesticated herbivores. Through converting unused or underutilized
fiber-rich resources into milk and meat and through grazing forages from land areas inaccessible for
harvest, herbivores can enhance both the energy and nutrient supply for humans. Similarly, feeding
food residues and wastes to non-ruminants results in a net increase in the supply of calories and
protein for humans. As an example, in New Zealand in 2009, pastures of non-arable land grazed
by cattle served as the primary source of both calories and protein for 5.8 million dairy cows that
yielded milk and milk products to not only feed their population of 4.3 million, but also to export
to other countries (New Zealand Agricultural Statistics, 2010). Through grazing, herbivores remove
surface forage and brush that, when allowed to accumulate, provide fuel for devastating wildfires
that often destroy scenery, property, and human and animal life.

CAN LAND USED FOR PRODUCTION OF LIVESTOCK FEEDS BE CONVERTED

READILY AND EASILY TO PRODUCE FOOD FOR HUMANS?
Season length, soil type, weather conditions, and the availability of water, equipment, labor, and
markets all can markedly limit the crops that can be produced on a specific plot of land or in a spe-
cific area. This limits the degree to which arable land can be converted from one crop to another.
For example, all rice produced within the United States is grown on irrigated land (Smith, 2001).
Vast tracts of non-irrigated land in the “corn belt” currently producing cereal grains could not be
converted to grow rice productively without extensive land modification and costly investments
even if such a change were feasible agronomically. Crops differ markedly in their tolerance of
environmental temperatures and season length, so the feasibility of converting arable land from one
crop to another is limited.
Traditionally, family farms produced a variety of crops and livestock species. Because of the
factors listed previously, land type and environmental conditions must be matched with crop
requirements if productivity is to be maximized. Land used to grow crops unsuited for the soil or
environment reflects an inefficient use of available resources just as land that stands idle and does
not produce a crop. Similarly, using arable land as pasture for grazing cattle represents inefficient use
of valuable land resources. Efficiency of food production is enhanced by trade on a local, national,
and international basis. Consumption of foods produced locally, although espoused by individuals
attempting to reduce the amount of energy used to transport goods and materials, often results in
inefficient use of available resources. A century ago when the United States was settled, diets for
the winter months in temperate areas consisted of dried fish or meats, potatoes, and home-canned
vegetables produced in the garden. All foods were obtained at home or nearby. Although such diets
may have a nostalgic appeal, returning to the use of only locally produced foods and products is
unlikely to satisfy today’s consumers in developed countries where markets currently provide con-
sumers with a very wide choice of out-of-season fruits and vegetables, specialty breads, coffees, and
Competition between Animals and Humans for Cultivated Crops 245

livestock products amassed from distant parts of the globe. Today products are designed, trimmed,
pre-processed, and packaged to meet the desires of consumers for taste, composition, quality, and
convenience, all at an additional cost to consumers.

DO ALL THE CALORIES FED TO LIVESTOCK COME FROM

CEREAL GRAINS AND OILSEEDS OR FROM PRODUCTS
UNSUITABLE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION?
Beyond the surpluses of crops produced on arable land and the pastures and forages produced on
non-arable land, vast quantities of by-products are fed to or consumed by livestock. With most crops,
less than one-half of the aboveground biomass produced is suitable for consumption by humans.
This leaves a substantial amount of residues that can be harvested by livestock, fed to livestock,
or returned to the soil. By-products also are generated during grain processing and conversion of
crops into foods, beverages, and fiber for human use. During production of corn grain, for example,
only one-half of the dry matter of the mature plant is grain. The remaining half, consisting of
stalks, leaves, and husks, can be grazed or harvested and fed to livestock as silage when the grain is
included to yield corn silage or it can be stored and fed separately from grain as stover silage. During
industrial conversion of grain to starch, corn sweeteners, or alcohol and other products for human
use or production of fuel, an additional diverse stream of by-products (hominy feed, corn gluten
feed, corn bran, corn gluten meal, brewers’ grains, and distillers’ grains) is generated that typically
comprises over 30% of the processed grain. When grains are used for making chips or baking, addi-
tional by-products are created. Foods and baked goods beyond their expiration date also are fed to
livestock. DePeters et al. (2000) published a list of 17 by-products commonly fed to dairy cattle in
California. Likewise, Bath et al. (2001) compiled nutrient composition data for dozens of by-product
feeds commonly fed to livestock. Were such products not fed to livestock, some other means of
handling and disposal would be needed. Finally, food wastes are fed to animals. In 2002, 49% of
the pigs on earth were in China (FAO, 2002) thriving largely on crop and industrial by-products and
food waste. The fact that the population of pigs in China is equal to 75% of the human population
illustrates how a large animal population can co-exist viably with a large human population. Within
developed countries, the population density of domestic animals varies regionally depending on the
availability of feed resources and market demand. For example, averaged across the United States,
only one pig (Suis domestica) exists for every 4.6 people, but within Iowa, pigs outnumber people by
4.6 to 1 (as often becomes apparent downwind). The dependence of livestock on by-products and on
other waste materials would be expected to increase in the future as competition for grain for other
purposes (e.g., biofuels, combustion to generate electricity) increases the cost of grain.
Widespread availability of economical by-products increases their use in livestock diets. Most
high concentrate feedlot diets a decade ago contained 80% grain, but today up to one-half of that
grain has been displaced with by-products of biofuel production (e.g., distillers’ grains plus solubles).
Through converting pastures, forages, and by-products that otherwise would be wasted, livestock
production increases the supply of food available for humankind.

ARE FOOD AND FEED CROPS EQUALLY EFFICIENT IN

PRODUCTION (YIELD PER HECTARE) OF CALORIES,
PROTEIN, AND OTHER ESSENTIAL NUTRIENTS?
Life on earth relies on photosynthesis of the past, present, and future. Efficiency of converting light
energy to biomass energy for most cereal crops falls between 1 and 2%. The C4 type of crops (sug-
arcane, corn, and pineapple) trap nearly two-thirds more solar calories than C3 plants. Energetic
efficiency of photosynthesis (conversion of solar energy to plant energy) as high as 8% has been
reported for cane plants although only a portion of that energy is retained as sucrose (Govindjee
246 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

and Govindjee, 2000). Efforts are under way to genetically modify wheat and rice to increase the
photosynthetic efficiency of those crops.
Return in terms of calories per hectare also differs among crops due to differences in inher-
ent genetic potential, weather conditions, water availability, and crop management (fertilization,
irrigation, and control of pests, weeds, and diseases). These management factors often limit crop
production in developing countries. Yield of a crop grown under ideal agronomic conditions should
provide an index of the relative genetic capability of that crop available currently.
For comparison among cereal grains and soybeans in terms of yield of calories and protein, one
might presume that crops grown in the United States in past years should be produced under agro-
nomic and management conditions that should approach being “ideal.” As an estimate of potential
yields from various cereal crops, yields in the United States were compiled from the USDA-ERS
(2010) database for the past 30 years. These crop yields from various cereal grains and soybeans
were converted to megacalories of metabolizable energy by multiplying yield per hectare by the
caloric content of products based on available (metabolizable) energy content of various grains
(NRC, 1998). Values are shown in Figure 12.3.
Note that for corn grain, the yield of calories per hectare was more than twice that of other
cereals with the exception of rice. Furthermore, the increase in the yield of calories alone during
the past 30 years from rice and corn exceeds the total calorie yield from most other crops! Linear
regression of the yield of digestible energy from 1980 to 2009 provides an estimate of the per-
centage increase each year. For these crops, the average annual increase has been positive: Corn
(2.17%), rice (1.75%), soybeans (1.75%), barley (1.12%), wheat (0.81%), oats (0.69%), and sorghum
(0.42%). The substantial yield increases for corn and soybeans, feed resources for livestock, bode
well for the future of animal production. However, the slow increase in the yield of calories from
sorghum grain is disconcerting considering that among these cereal crops, sorghum is most resis-
tant to drought and thrives in regions with very limited rainfall and water availability. In addition
to differences among cereal crops in their need for water (less for sorghum and wheat than for corn
or rice), these crops also differ in their need for supplemental nitrogen (N) fertilizer, being much
less for soybeans and other legumes due to the capacity of synergistic bacteria associated with
legume roots to fix N from the air. When selecting a crop to plant, farmers must consider not only

40,000
Barley Corn Oats
35,000 Rice Sorghum Soybeans
Wheat
Yield, Mcal Digested Energy/Hectare

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

FIGURE 12.3 (See color insert) Capture of digestible energy per hectare in crops harvested from various
cereal grains and soybeans in the United States from 1980 to 2009.
Competition between Animals and Humans for Cultivated Crops 247

crop yields (amount and consistency) and crop value, but also total economic return per hectare
to pay input costs and support a family and laborers. Return will differ with numerous input costs
as well as adaptation of the crop to regional and temporal environmental conditions. Relative risk
of crop failure also differs among crops. Biotechnological advances have been achieved through
traditional plant breeding and through genetic modifications that reduce insect damage, the cost of
weed control, and the plant’s need for water and fertilizer. These modifications cannot only reduce
input costs, but also allow crops to be produced in regions or under conditions previously unsuited
for that crop, potentially increasing the amount of land suitable for production of that crop. On a
worldwide basis, productivity of cereal grains also has been increasing steadily. Except for four
crops (corn grain, sorghum grain, peanuts, and rice), crop yields averaged across all countries in
the world are currently surprisingly similar (70 to 139%) to production rates within the United
States (USDA-FAS, 2011). For the four specific crops noted, however, worldwide production over
the past 5 years has averaged only 39, 37, 43, and 53%, respectively, of that in the United States,
probably due to greater application of genetics and biotechnology and additional agronomic inputs
within the United States and the inherent responsiveness of these crops to selection and agronomic
inputs.
In addition to calories, protein components (essential amino acids) are required for growth and
maintenance of animals and humans. Protein return per hectare from various crops and soybeans
was calculated in the same manner as for calories (Figure 12.4).
Protein yield per unit of arable land is greater for soybeans than for cereal grains primarily due
to the high protein content of soybeans. Linear regression of yield of protein against year (from
1980 to 2009) gives an estimate of the yearly increase. Averaged across this 29-year period, yearly
increases in protein yields were positive for soybeans (1.75%), corn (2.17%), rice (1.75%), sorghum
(0.42%), barley (1.11%), wheat (0.81%), and oats (0.69%). These increases are almost identical to the
changes in yield of calories. Parallel increases in yield of calories and protein are expected unless
protein content of the crop changes.
Among these cereal grains, protein content is higher for wheat and barley than for other cereal
grains. The value of a protein source must consider not only its protein content, but also its quality
(limiting amino acids and balance among amino acids). Shortages of essential amino acids (often

1,200
Barley Corn Oats
Rice Sorghum Soybeans
1,000 Wheat
Yield, kg protein/Hectare

800

600

400

200

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

FIGURE 12.4 (See color insert) Protein yields per hectare from various crops in the United States from
1980 to 2009.
248 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

lysine and tryptophan) limit the quality of proteins from commercially produced cereal grains. In
contrast, proteins present in animal products and soybeans provide a well-balanced complement of
amino acids. Based on the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), values
for humans for the protein from casein, egg, whey, and soybeans are all near 100, the maximum
value possible, whereas values of proteins from other crops and foods is lower (legumes, 70; beef,
92; fruits, 76; vegetables, 73; , cereals, 59; wheat, 42) (Schaafsma, 2000). Because of shortages of
specific essential amino acids or total protein, diets for humans and animals based on cereal grains
must be supplemented with proteins from other sources in order to compensate for their amino acid
shortages for optimum growth, performance, and health.
For growth and maintenance, a minimum quantity of each of the individual essential amino
acids is required (grams per day). The PDCAAS of a source of protein or a diet serves as an index
of how well the ratios of amino acids within a protein or diet match the ratio of individual amino
acids required. Amino acid requirements can be met by providing a very large excess of protein
from a source with a low biological value or by a small amount of protein with a high biological
value. Because protein sources can differ in their first limiting amino acid, the PDCAAS for differ-
ent protein sources is not additive, but can be synergistic. By combining protein sources, one protein
source can complement another so that the combination has a higher PDCAAS than the average
for each of the two protein sources. Because the proteins present in cereal grains, leafy vegetables,
and fruits are low in lysine and tryptophan as well as total protein, protein sources rich in lysine
and tryptophan and richer in total protein content are needed to complement such foods or feeds.
Protein sources that are particularly rich in lysine and tryptophan as well as in total protein content
include animal products (meat, milk) and certain legumes (various beans). Although animal source
proteins are convenient and have been used for centuries to complement plant protein sources, beans
can be substituted for animal proteins in vegetarian diets. Indeed, proteins derived from soybeans
including isolated soy protein, tofu (a soy precipitate), and fermented soy products (meso, tempeh)
are used widely as a substitute for proteins of animal origin in infant formulas for milk in devel-
oped countries and as a supplement for grain-based diets in developing countries. The efficiency of
converting solar energy directly to these well-balanced plant proteins theoretically should be con-
siderably greater than expecting animals to convert various plant proteins to animal products with
a high PDCAAS. On this basis, precipitated or fermented soy products have been touted widely as
being ideal for displacing animal protein sources in diets for humans. Unfortunately, several factors
currently limit the acceptance of soy-based protein sources by humans. These include the presence
of anti-nutritional compounds, adverse taste components, and high commercial cost. The orga-
noleptic issues and other limitations (presence of estrogenic isoflavones, protease inhibitors, and
phytic acid) in soy products can be alleviated largely through selection of specific soy cultivars and
modified industrial processes. For example, fermentation of soy products can reduce or eliminate
protease inhibitors and hemaglutinin. Marketed tofu and its derivatives typically contain over 87%
water and on a wet matter basis equivalent have only about one-third of the protein in ground beef
or pork. Costs per unit of protein, not per unit of food, need to be considered when comparing vari-
ous sources of protein. In 2011, the cost per unit of protein from available tofu and soy products in
supermarkets in the United States was about 1.7 times the cost of protein from ground beef or pork.
Whether this high price differential between soy protein products and protein sources of animal
origin will decrease in the future if tofu is produced on a larger scale is uncertain. Tofu and soy
products are more extensively marketed and consumed in countries where protectionist trade poli-
cies restrict the importation of animal products so that the availability of animal products is limited
and higher in price.

HOW EFFICIENT IS PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS FOOD CROPS?

Some of the arable land currently used for crop production could be used to produce vegetables,
fruits, and other food products that are edible at harvest or readily converted to products to be
Competition between Animals and Humans for Cultivated Crops 249

consumed directly by humans; hereafter, designated “food crops.” When arable land is used to
produce various food crops frequently consumed by humans, what return in calories can one expect
per hectare? Again, yields of calories and protein from various food crops within the United States
were calculated. Considering that agronomic conditions should be optimum under production con-
ditions in the United States, these relative values should reflect the current genetic merit of various
crops. Crop yields, calculated from acreage and production of various food crops in the United
States (USDA-ERS, 2010), were combined with calorie content for each crop derived from USDA-
ARS (2010) data tables for energy and nutrient content to calculate yields in terms of megacalories
of metabolizable energy as illustrated in Figure 12.5. Corn grain energy yields from Figure 12.3
provide a comparison.
Only two crops, potatoes and onions, retained as much as one-half of the energy in food for
human consumption as the corn plant deposits merely in corn grain. Among the vegetables, the
root crops (potatoes, onions, carrots, and sweet potatoes) had considerably greater retention of
edible energy per hectare of arable land than vegetable crops, sweet corn, or blueberries. Like
these root crops for which information is available, other root crops (cassava, beets) might be
expected to retain more solar energy in edible products than food crops derived from the aerial
portion of plants. The yield of calories is considerably lower from sweet corn than field corn due
to harvest at a very immature stage and low grain yields. The fact that yields of calories for food
crops are all considerably lower than for corn grain illustrates how diversion of cropland from
grain production to vegetable production would markedly reduce the amount of solar energy
captured in edible products. Expansion of the land area that is used for production of either feed
or food crops would also be expected to decrease productivity because the land areas that are
added likely will be less suited climatically or agronomically for production than land in regions
currently being farmed. Regression of yield per hectare since 1985 was used as an index of the
rate of increase in productivity of these crops. Again, productivity changes over time for various
crops were positive (see Figure 12.5). That yields of all crops showed an upward trend is encour-
aging. However, despite these substantial yearly increases in food crop production, yield of total
calories per hectare remains much lower for these crops consumed directly by humans than for
most cereal grains.

40,000

Corn grain
35,000

30,000
Yield, Mcal/hectare

25,000
Potato
20,000
Onion

15,000 Carrot
Sweet potato
Tomato
10,000 Pepper
Cabbage
Watermelon
Lettuce
5,000 Cantaloupe
Sweet corn
Broccoli
Blueberry
Asparagus
0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

FIGURE 12.5 (See color insert) Energy capture in edible megacalories per hectare by corn grain, various
fruits and vegetables, and berries from 1985 to 2008. (From USDA/ERS, 2010; USDA/ARS, 2010.)
250 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

In contrast to management and harvest procedures for cereal grains, most steps in production and
harvest of vegetables, fruits, and nut crops are not readily mechanized. Instead, management and
harvest of vegetables and fruits typically require extensive and expensive seasonal manual labor.
Further, in contrast with cereal grains that are readily stored for later use, vegetables and fruits high
in moisture content typically are fragile and have a short “shelf life.” Certainly, food crops at local
and seasonal farmer’s markets have consumer appeal in terms of freshness and credence attributes.
However, in areas of the world where rainfall is seasonal and winter temperatures are cold, either
long-term storage or importation is required if vegetables and fruits are to be consumed beyond
their season of production. Most vegetables require dehydration or special handling and condi-
tions for storage (e.g., refrigeration, canning, and freezing). Even in developing countries located in
tropical climates, particularly in isolated rural areas, lack of appropriate storage facilities obviates
dependence on fresh food crops as a yearlong source of calories and nutrients. These same factors
complicate and increase the cost of handling and transporting food crops, particularly for produce
that is exported. Distance and time from markets often limits the physical locations where vegetable
crop farms can be sited. The concept of basing a diet on the minimum “food miles” to reduce the
carbon footprint may be more of an illusion than a fact (Capper et al., 2009). As compared with
fruits and vegetables, dry cereal grains are readily handled, transported, and stored for years or even
centuries when protected from insects and rodents. Hence, distance, storage conditions, and time
limitations are less restrictive for dry cereal grains than for most food crops. Although grazing of
livestock in temperate regions also is seasonal, feeding of harvested forages and grains to livestock
allows milk and meat production to continue uninterrupted throughout the year and avoids seasonal
fluctuations in the supply and price of foods for humans. Yet, the need for refrigeration or freezing
for longer-term storage of animal products can limit availability of meat and milk in developing
countries. However, dehydration, preservatives, and, for milk, ultra-high temperature treatment can
help to reduce the need for specialized storage facilities. Through converting cereal grains to milk
and meat, the impact of local crop failures on availability of feed for livestock is cushioned readily
by transport of grains or by-products from areas of surplus to areas of shortage.
Protein yields from various food crops relative to soybeans calculated as above for the past 23
years are presented in Figure 12.6.

1,200

1,000 Soybean

800
Yield, kg protein/hectare

600 Potato
Tomato
Onion
Cabbage
400 Lettuce
Carrot
Broccoli
Pepper
200 Sweet potato
Sweet corn
Cantaloupe
Watermelon
Blueberry
0 Asparagus

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

FIGURE 12.6 (See color insert) Protein yields per hectare for food crops and soybeans from 1985 to 2008.
(From USDA/ERS, 2010; USDA/ARS, 2010.)
Competition between Animals and Humans for Cultivated Crops 251

Relative to soybeans, protein yields from food crops ranged from only 4% for asparagus to 55%
for root crops and tomatoes (Figure 12.6). As with calories, yields of protein from crops fed to live-
stock typically are double those of food crops, so conversion of arable land used for production of
grain and oilseed to production of food crops consumed directly by humans would markedly reduce
both protein and calorie output from crops. A portion of this greater yield of calories and protein can
be ascribed to successes by plant breeders in enhancing productivity of specific cereal grains and
oilseeds, but inherent differences in photosynthetic capacity and efficiency and in plant productivity
probably are involved, as well.

HOW EFFICIENTLY DO LIVESTOCK CONVERT DIETARY CALORIES

AND PROTEIN FROM FEEDS INTO EDIBLE PRODUCTS?
In developed countries, approximately one-third of calories in the human diet are derived from
animal products (FAO, 1995). Substantial amounts of certain cereal crops (e.g., sorghum, corn,
barley, oats, millet, and rye) are fed to animals, but feeding of several “food” grains (wheat and
rice) to livestock is rare unless other “feed” grains cannot be readily or economically sourced.
Yet, in certain countries and regions, like the United Kingdom, poultry diets often contain wheat
due to its availability and trade restrictions. Selection of specific feeds for formulation of animal
diets is based first on the availability of various homegrown materials (crop by-products, pasture,
and forages). These are supplemented as needed with additional energy, amino acids, minerals,
and vitamins. Livestock producers who grow crops must determine whether homegrown products
should be fed to livestock or if those feeds and livestock should be sold to markets outside the farm
or ranch. Forage-based diets usually require supplemental energy, protein, vitamins, and minerals.
For poultry and swine in the United States, 50 to 60% of the total cost of production is attributed to
the cost of dietary ingredients. For non-ruminants, diets must be low in fiber content. Consequently,
diets for poultry and swine in developed countries typically are composed primarily of cereal grains
supplemented with various oilseed by-products (e.g., soybean meal, peanut meal, cottonseed meal,
and canola meal). For cattle, sheep, and goats, the cost of supplemental feeds will vary depending
on the farming system employed and stage of growth of livestock. Of the total cost of production,
the cost of feed for ruminants will range from under 5% for supplementing grass-based diets with
needed nutrients to over 80% for finishing cattle in feedlots (OSU, 2003).
Selection of the individual feeds to be included in diets for animals generally is based on com-
puterized least-cost diet formulation programs. This method of formulation minimizes the total cost
of a diet by optimizing synergies of proteins to provide amino acids with addition of other nutrients
from various feed ingredients and mineral and vitamin supplements. When the cost of one feed rela-
tive to a second with similar nutrient composition increases markedly, the second feed will displace
the first as an ingredient in a livestock diet. In contrast, when all feed costs increase, the amount
of feed that is fed to livestock decreases because livestock production is no longer economically
viable. Only when the commercial value of livestock products increases simultaneously with feed
prices will feed use for livestock continue unabated. Economic survival of any enterprise is possible
only when product value exceeds the total input cost. Consequently, whenever the cost of grain rela-
tive to that of animal products increases, the amount of grain that is fed to livestock automatically
decreases sparing grain for other uses. Except for hobby farmers, livestock production is a business
that can survive only through converting commodities or feed ingredients that are low in cost into
products that are valued by consumers. Perturbations in this relationship (e.g., crop failures, compe-
tition with biofuel producers for grain, taxation or subsidies for specific commodities, and reduced
consumer demand) force livestock producers to modify their formulated diets and, in some cases,
to fail economically. A decrease in product value, induced by consumer concerns or fears (e.g., ani-
mal abuse concerns, healthfulness perceptions like “swine flu,” hoof and mouth disease, zoonoses)
also can reduce the demand for animal products, the economic return for producers, and ultimately
livestock production.
252 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

In countries that are more affluent where grain is abundant, grain is and will continue to be fed to
animals as long as the economic return generated through conversion of grain to animal products is
adequate to cover all costs. The degree that composition of a diet for a specific animal will change in
response to a change in price of a feed is much smaller for diets for pets and horses than for diets used
for other livestock. Production economics dictates the sustainability of a livestock production system,
but not the sustainability of pets in developed countries. Cereal grains, when refined and processed,
also are consumed by humans. When feeds that could be milled into food for humans are fed to ani-
mals for production of animal products, calories are lost. However, as discussed previously, grain is not
the single source of calories for livestock when forages, by-products, and gleaned residues are avail-
able. Hence, when calculating the efficiency of conversion of calories and protein from grain products
to animal products (meat, milk, and eggs), one must consider the wide diversity among animal species
in their dietary requirements, in feed availability and cost, and in animal production practices.
Estimates of caloric and protein efficiencies when converting dietary components into foods of
animal origin will vary widely, both temporally and regionally, due to the wide spectrum of live-
stock production systems used in developed and developing countries. Efficiency values generated
by CAST (1999) for conversion of weight, calories, and protein from grains to edible animal prod-
ucts averaged within developed and developing countries were derived from extensive comparisons
and are provided in Table 12.2.
As shown in Table 12.2, the efficiency with which energy and protein are converted from cereal
grains into livestock products differs markedly both among animal species and between developed
and developing countries. This diversity usually is not recognized or understood by critics of live-
stock production. The efficiency of converting calories from cereal grains into calories present in
edible livestock products in developed countries ranges from a mean of only 12% for pork produc-
tion to more than 50% for milk production. In developing countries, caloric efficiency ranges from
a low of 22% for egg production (although values should be much greater for layers that scavenge
for food) to over 175% for beef harvested largely after being finished on grass. An efficiency that
exceeds 100% indicates that animals are obtaining energy and nutrients from non-grain resources
inedible for humans so that the output of calories or protein in animal products is exceeding the

TABLE 12.2
Efficiency of Converting Grain to Edible Animal Products
Weight Efficiencya Caloric Efficiencyb Protein Efficiencyb
Developed Countries
Beef 0.38 0.21 0.49
Pork 0.27 0.12 0.24
Lamb or mutton 1.28 0.27 1.26
Poultry 0.47 0.20 0.32
Milk 3.03 0.51 0.56
Eggs 0.46 0.16 0.32
Developing Countries
Beef 3.23 1.75 4.51
Pork 0.57 0.25 0.50
Lamb or mutton 3.03 0.65 2.97
Poultry 0.64 0.27 0.44
Milk 4.55 0.76 0.84
Eggs 0.64 0.22 0.44

a Calculated from CAST (1999) based on typical animal diets.

b Calculated from weight efficiencies from CAST (1999) and calorie and protein content
of individual animal products from USDA-ARS (2010).
Competition between Animals and Humans for Cultivated Crops 253

input of calories or protein from grain. However, an efficiency that exceeds 100% should not be mis-
interpreted to mean that feeding more grain to livestock would increase efficiency. Including more
grain in a forage diet often increases the rate of growth or milk production, but additional dietary
grain generally decreases caloric efficiency of production because added grain displaces energy that
otherwise is obtained from non-grain (by-products and forage) portions of the diet. High rates of
production of milk and meat are desired in order to dilute the maintenance costs of animals and to
increase cash flow. Therefore, the economic incentive for feeding diets rich in grain is greatest when
overhead, investment cost, and interest rates are high. In contrast, low land cost encourages grazing
and, with improved types of forage, can markedly reduce or fully eliminate the need to feed cereal
grains to ruminants. The fact that caloric efficiency is greater for animal products in developing
than in developed countries reflects a heavier reliance on non-grain feed resources in developing
than in developed countries.
The efficiency values in Table 12.2 were calculated in 1999 before the rapid expansion of the
biofuel industry within the United States for conversion of feed grains to ethanol and oilseeds to
biodiesel. Fermentation of grain to produce ethanol has markedly increased the supply of distillers’
grains and corn gluten feed, by-products inedible by humans but able to replace one-half or more of
the grain in diets for dairy and beef cattle. If an inedible by-product like distillers’ grain displaces
one-half of the cereal grain of a diet and production per unit of diet remains unchanged, efficiency
of grain use is doubled! The degree to which by-products of biofuel production can displace dietary
cereal grains differs among livestock species. Thanks to microbial digestion in the rumen, grow-
ing and adult ruminants can digest fiber-rich by-products that growing poultry and swine cannot.
Through modifying the biofuel manufacturing process to separate components either before or after
fermentation, by-products that are sufficiently low in fiber content to have greater feeding values for
poultry and swine can be generated. Alternative uses for feeds and by-products, including combus-
tion to generate electricity as currently used in Brazil, fermentation of silages to generate methane
and electricity in Europe, and the production of ethanol from cellulosic by-products, likely will
increase the competition for and the price of these ethanol by-products and other feeds that are cur-
rently fed widely to livestock.
Efficiency values cited in Table 12.2 markedly exceed those suggested by certain sources (Lappe,
1991). This difference can be ascribed largely to differences in the database used for calculations.
Efficiency values reported in the past generally were calculated on a weight conversion basis, not
on a caloric basis, and typically for only a single phase of livestock production, often the feedlot
phase of production when grain intakes are highest. More logically, efficiencies should be cal-
culated through total life-cycle assessment methods. Furthermore, they should consider only the
dietary products that are edible by humans. Caloric efficiencies during the feedlot phase of produc-
tion for pigs, cattle, and broilers are contrasted with those over the total life cycle in Figure 12.7. In
these experiments, corn grain calories were displaced to various degrees by calories from distillers’
grains to decrease the grain content of the diet.
In all cases, displacing corn grain with distillers’ grains increased the tissue-to-grain caloric
ratio (efficiency of converting the remaining corn grain calories to tissue calories). Caloric effi-
ciency based on the total life cycle can be either greater or less than the efficiency calculated for the
grain-feeding or feedlot phase of production. With pigs, lifetime efficiency was slightly less than
feedlot efficiency because grain typically is fed to sows during gestation. In contrast, the caloric
efficiency for cattle is considerably greater over the life span than during the feedlot phase. This
reflects the fact that cows usually graze pasture or consume forages during gestation. In addition,
for about one-half of their growth, calves obtain energy by nursing and from grazed forages, and
are not fed supplemental grain during this pre-feedlot growth interval of 6 to 9 months. In addition,
many feedlot cattle are “backgrounded” on pasture for several months after being weaned. Because
of this extended period of growth without supplemental grain, caloric efficiency for beef produced
on grass or fed diets low in grain content can exceed the caloric efficiency of converting grain to
poultry and swine products because non-ruminants typically are fed diets rich in grain for their full
254 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

30
Feedlot cattle
Feedlot pigs
Lifetime cattle
25 Lifetime pigs
Broilers

Tissue/Grain Calories, % 20

15

10

0
30 50 70 90 110
Grain in Finishing Diet, % of DM

FIGURE 12.7 (See color insert) Feedlot phase versus lifecycle caloric efficiencies for various animal prod-
ucts. (Based on data from Whitney et al. (2006), J. Anim. Sci. 84: 3356–3363; Bremer et al. (2007), 2008
Nebraska Feeders Report, pp. 39–40; Dozier et al. (2007), J. Appl. Poult. Res. 16: 206–218; and Klopfenstein
et al. (2008), J. Anim. Sci. 86: 1223–1231.)

life span. These differences among livestock species, in both the extent and the efficiency of grain
use, although seldom recognized, can markedly alter the efficiencies of converting calories from
cereal grains to livestock products.
Compared with energetic efficiencies noted in Table 12.2, protein efficiencies from feeds fed to
animals (including soybean meal, a by-product of production of soy oil) generally is greater. Again,
values within developed and developing countries were averaged across a wide variety of produc-
tion conditions. Despite having low rates of production, livestock that glean waste products and con-
sume crop residues typically have higher efficiencies of caloric and protein use from the feed grains
than do livestock raised under confinement conditions being fed harvested grains and forages. As
noted previously, economic viability of large-scale confinement units (industrial animal agriculture
or “factory farms”) relies heavily on least-cost sources of energy from grain or grain by-products,
as well as economies of scale.
Additional estimates of efficiency were derived by Oltjen and Beckett (1996) based on conver-
sions of energy and protein from feeds edible by humans to edible products produced by cattle.
Competition for food on a “humanly edible” basis inherently seems more logical than on a “grain”
basis. These authors provided extensive details about their methods for calculating “human edible”
returns across regions within the United States that differ in availability of feed resources. Their
estimates are shown in Table 12.3.
Values for milk produced at Dairy I in Table 12.3 represent a typical California production sys-
tem where by-products comprised a substantial portion of the diet. Values for Dairy II were derived
for milk production by cows fed alfalfa, corn silage, corn grain, and soybean meal. Here, concen-
trations of dietary grain were greater, leading to lower efficiencies of both energy and protein use.
Efficiency of beef production differed with region depending largely on the resources available for
maintenance of the cowherd (grazed forages versus harvested corn silage), the duration of the feed-
ing period, and the choice of grain used in the feedlot (wheat versus corn). The marked discrepancy
between efficiency values shown here and those calculated by others (Gerbens-Leenes, Nonhebel,
and Ivens, 2002; Peters, Wilkins, and Fick, 2007) can be ascribed to regional differences in available
Competition between Animals and Humans for Cultivated Crops 255

TABLE 12.3
Humanly Edible Returns from Cattle Production
in the United States
Digestible Energy (%) Digestible Protein (%)
Dairy I 128 276
Dairy II 57 96
Beef
Colorado 37 65
Iowa 28 52
Texas 59 104

Source: Oltjen, J.W., and J.L. Beckett. 1996. J. Anim. Sci. 74:
1406–1409.
Note: Values are calculated as output energy or protein divided
by input energy or protein multiplied by 100.

resources, inherent assumptions related to the edibility by humans of various feed sources, calcula-
tion of efficiency values in a given segment of growth versus the full life span, and the assumed
productivity of crops that might be grown on arable land currently used for grain production.
In addition to feed, water is used to grow crops fed to livestock and water is consumed directly
by animals during growth and production. One early estimate that 20,000 l of water were required
to produce 1 kg of boneless beef was challenged in an extensive study by Beckett and Oltjen
(1993). Under current production practices, they estimated that 3682 l of water were required to
produce 1 kg of boneless beef. Of this, less than 4% (145 l) was consumed by the animals, 96%
was used for production of feed crops, and the remainder (<1%) was used for beef processing.
Based on their estimates, production of 1 kg of alfalfa, wheat, sorghum, barley, and corn require
911, 1417, 1689, 1665, and 900 l of water, respectively. Note that these amounts of water needed
per kilogram of feed do not match estimates of the amount of water needed per hectare for vari-
ous crops because crop yields per hectare differ among these crops. In regions where crops are
produced without irrigation, water usage is of limited concern. For irrigation, however, the energy
used for and the cost of pumping water as well as the depletion of aquifers are ongoing concerns.
Whether crops are produced for export or for domestic use should not alter water use. Water is
needed for growth and calorie production by crops. The amount of water as well as energy used
for processing generally is greater for food crops than for cereal grains, partly due to the low pro-
ductivity of food crops.

ARE LARGE-SCALE LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION UNITS

INEFFICIENT AND IRRESPONSIBLE?
Benefits from specialization in crop production and in animal care have caused large-scale produc-
tion systems to gradually displace the less efficient “family farms” that often grew crops not ideally
suited for climatic and soil conditions for feeding multiple livestock species. Increased attention to
economics of livestock production has led to housing systems and precisely balanced diet formu-
las based on least-cost resources that maximize economic returns in terms of rate and efficiency
of growth, health, reproduction, and activity. Although growth might be criticized as an index of
well-being, similar techniques are used with infants (APGAR scores) and children (growth charts)
to assess health, development, and well-being in the human population. Housing or management
systems or diets that fail to consider the basic needs of livestock for space, health, and nutrients
256 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

usually result in depressed rates or efficiencies of growth. Economics, productivity, and market
demands and anthropomorphic concerns have led to the livestock and crop management practices
typically used today.
To reduce cost of production or to meet consumer desires, certain practices have evolved within
large-scale commercial livestock units that may have adverse effects on the well-being of animals.
Several of these involve alterations in the diets available to or provided for livestock. For example,
the meat color of growing calves fed milk as their only dietary ingredient is white or light gray.
Based on tradition, restaurants and consumers voice a preference for veal that is white or gray-white
in color. To produce veal of that color, myoglobin concentrations in muscle tissue must be low. With
formulated feeds, light meat color can be achieved through feeding diets very low in iron content.
Although such diets may not retard growth, veal calves fed such diets have lower blood hemoglobin
concentrations than found in calves with access to forage to graze. Consequently, in order to meet
consumer desires, special diets and confinement production units are used for veal production.
Agronomic advancements to increase productivity and nutritional value of forages also have com-
plicated livestock production. Development and widespread use of legumes that fix nitrogen from
the air and of highly productive winter wheat for grazing cattle has increased the incidence of bloat
among grazing cattle beyond that seen among cattle grazing slower growing, unimproved forages or
native pastures. Productivity of grass crops and forages generally is increased by applying organic
or inorganic fertilizers. However, with certain plant species, particularly drought-resistant sorghums
and sudans, a high level of nitrogen fertility in soil when combined with weather or frost stress
causes these plants to accumulate nitrate which is toxic to ruminants. Because the cost of net energy
typically is lower for concentrates than forages, formulated diets for livestock and poultry generally
are rich in concentrate feeds and low in fiber content. Grains often are processed (finely ground,
pelleted, steam-flaked, extruded, or fermented) to increase the availability of energy and nutrients
even further. High rates of digestion, fine particle size, and low concentrations of dietary fiber are
associated with an increased incidence of gastric ulcers in swine and of ruminal acidosis in dairy
cows and cattle and sheep in feed yards. To maintain production and reduce subclinical disease
problems of animals and poultry, feed additives (probiotics, yeast, enzymes) often are included in
diets for livestock to increase nutrient availability and stabilize or supplement the digestion process.
The prevalence of respiratory disease among cattle is increased markedly by assembling groups of
livestock from multiple origins. Thus, large-scale production systems typically employ preventive
and treatment measures to reduce microbial infections to a greater degree than smaller-scale pro-
duction units do where livestock never leave their farm of origin.

WHAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF STARVATION IN TODAY’S WORLD?

It is difficult to rationalize that production or consumption of animal products is directly or indi-
rectly contributing to human starvation when one considers that:

1. A large fraction of arable land in the world currently is not being used for crop production
2. Many animal species thrive on diets composed of forages and inedible by-products
3. Feed grains yield substantially more energy and protein than do food crops
4. Land used to grow cereal crops is not readily or easily converted to grow food crops
5. The efficiency of converting dietary calories and protein to animal products can exceed
100% when composed of by-products and waste materials

Instead, imbalanced economics both among and within nations is considered to be the primary
cause of food deprivation and starvation. Economics drives production and distribution of nutrients,
goods, and services worldwide. Current food production in the world is sufficient to provide calories
for 7 billion people while the current world population is approximately 6 billion (Oracle, 2000).
Caloric distribution is inequitable both among and within nations. Most food is produced in more
Competition between Animals and Humans for Cultivated Crops 257

developed countries, but individuals in need of food usually cannot afford to pay the price that
farmers in developed or developing countries need to produce additional food. In addition, weather,
insects, and disease can reduce crop and livestock production temporarily and regionally.
Most experts attribute food imbalances and starvation to lack of purchasing power of citizens and
to restrictive political policies, not to the worldwide supply of food (Oracle, 2000). Certain countries
(e.g., the United States, Brazil, Argentina, and Australia) are blessed with a surplus of arable land,
an infrastructure for food transport, economic power to obtain materials that increase crop produc-
tivity (fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation), aggressive and economically savvy crop and livestock
producers, and a relatively low population density. Consequently, these countries export both crop
and animal products to other nations.
Local and regional factors always have and will continue to dictate the economic feasibility of
production of livestock, as well as food and feed crops. Feeding of grain to livestock will continue
as long as economic return is generated, for example, local grain prices remain low relative to the
demand-driven prices for livestock products. The choice among crops that landholders produce to pay
their expenses is driven by value of the crop produced minus all input costs. Whenever competition
for or a shortage of grain results in an increased price of grain, economic return to livestock produc-
ers is reduced and producers are forced by economics to decrease or cease production. Alternatively,
producers can rely to a greater degree on calories supplied from non-arable land available for graz-
ing and locally available crop and industrial by-products that are unsuitable for human consumption
or for other uses (e.g., fermentation or combustion to generate electricity). Because diets of poultry,
swine, and feedlot cattle are strongly dependent on grain for calories, such enterprises respond more
abruptly and drastically to changes in grain prices than livestock enterprises that exist on diets com-
posed of by-products, waste products, and forages. Production of fruit and vegetable crops that can be
marketed directly to consumers likely will increase in regions where producers have nearby access to
urban markets and low labor costs. Because each of these factors, as well as the demand for specific
animal products, varies internationally and regionally, production of livestock would be expected to
increase in certain regions of the world and to decrease in other areas depending on the availability
and cost of inputs, environmental restrictions, and consumer values of specific products. Although
global marketing of agricultural products should improve the nutrient balance among nations, two
factors are expected to limit food availability. First, persistent nationalism to either restrict or encour-
age imports or exports biases worldwide prices and inhibits trade, often reducing production and
availability of food in other countries or at home. Second, consumer attitudes and governmental
regulations that restrict access to or production of more highly productive or efficient hybrids or vari-
eties of both crops and livestock serves to reduce the worldwide food supply.

WHAT MIGHT ONE EXPECT AS THE HUMAN POPULATION

INCREASES IN THE 21ST CENTURY?
As is apparent across nations (Figure 12.8), an increase in per capita income in developing coun-
tries generally results in an increase in the demand for and the consumption of animal products. Per
capita consumption of meat and milk is expected to increase during the current 23-year evaluation
period (1997 to 2020) by 13 and 16 kg (16 and 8%, respectively) in developed countries and by 11
and 19 kg (44 and 44%, respectively) in developing countries according to Delgado (2003). When
combined with the increase in the global population, this means that to meet demands, total meat
and milk production will need to increase by 62 and 49%, respectively, during this 23-year period.
During this period, per capita use of cereals for feeding livestock is projected to increase to 375 kg
in developing countries and to 72 kg in developed countries. Over 70% of this increase in the meat
supply is expected to come from pork and poultry. To feed these animals and meet this demand,
exports of grain and meat from developed countries is expected to increase while interchange of
both crops and livestock among developing countries will increase. How long such increases in
crop and meat production and exports can continue to meet the worldwide demand for livestock
258 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

140
USA
120
Russian
Per capita meat consumption (kg)
Federation
100
Brazil
80
China
60
Japan
40
Thailand
20

India
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Per capita income (US$ PPP)

FIGURE 12.8 Meat consumption versus per capita income for various nations. (From FAO. 2006a. Livestock’s
long shadow: Environmental issues and options. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a070le/a070le01.pdf)

products has been questioned. In those countries where arable land is not fully used, crop produc-
tion can be increased readily in response to market forces. Yet, the expansion of crop production on
marginal, erodible land and the conversion of forested to arable land are of concern because of del-
eterious environmental effects and degradation of arable and potentially arable land (FAO, 2000).
Despite public concerns in developing and developed countries, the demand for and the price of
foods and feeds is expected to increase. In response to these economic incentives, crop and livestock
producers can be expected to begin cropping large expanses of potentially arable land not currently
being used for crops in sub-Saharan Africa and South and Central America. As fossil fuel prices
increase, the use of cereal crops, cellulosic products, and oilseeds for biofuel production and for gen-
eration of electricity (via combustion or biogas production) also should grow. Increased stringency
of environmental regulations in developed countries likely will restrict development or expansion of
crop and livestock production units, increase inter-dependency among countries, and expand inter-
national trade. Private and public investments in research dealing with genetics and management of
specific plant species will continue to increase efficiencies of production by reducing environmental
limitations (insect damage, insufficient water, low fertility, heat, and soil salinity). Where economic
incentives to convert feed grains to animal products exist, production of livestock will increase,
with expansion being greatest in localities where grain is abundant, grain prices are low, and under-
utilized resources and by-products for livestock feed are readily available.

CURRENT AND FUTURE CONCERNS

Numerous food issues are widely discussed and debated.

1. According to a 2009 report from the FAO, 19% of the people on Earth (more than 1 billion
people) are undernourished with prevalence being greatest in Asia and Africa, and world
hunger is increasing (FAO, 2006b; 2009). While politicians discuss the potential effects of
global warming on species diversity and the future food supply for humans, humans are
starving today.
2. Within developed countries, some individuals question whether food products should be
distributed to people in other parts of the world while poor and needy people exist within
Competition between Animals and Humans for Cultivated Crops 259

their own community. Which has greater lasting impact: Supplying fish to feed the needy
or teaching the needy to fish? Investment in an Agricultural Peace Corps to increase effi-
ciency of food production internationally should help to decrease armed conflicts created
by food insecurities in developing nations.
3. Some individuals adopt specific lifestyles in an attempt to reduce global warming and to
spare food for humans that, without a full understanding of economic and trade issues,
are likely to prove vain and futile. That locally produced foods and a simple reduction
in food miles can reduce the carbon footprint of food, though seemingly logical, has
been soundly refuted by Capper et al. (2009). Likewise, that the carbon footprint is less
from beef finished on grass rather than on grain has been debunked (Capper et al., 2009;
Peters et al., 2010) even though grass-finished beef can reduce competition for arable
land. This illustrates how actions to achieve different environmental goals can conflict
with each other. Public understanding about nutrition, food production, and food safety
needs to be enhanced and misinformation needs to be challenged promptly. Efforts by
policymakers and the public to save the environment and to feed the world may prove
erroneous and deleterious unless all economic aspects are analyzed carefully as outlined
by Simmons (2009).
4. Activist groups that condemn animal production ignore the critical role that animal pro-
duction plays in providing a livelihood for producers, processors, and retailers as well as
calories and protein sorely needed for rural communities of both the developing and the
developed world (IFAD, 1993; Speedy, 2003; Randolph et al., 2007). Beneficial effects
of animal production on rural development internationally are mirrored by the fact that a
2010 World Food Prize was awarded to Heifer International. This organization provides
chickens, pigs, or pregnant heifers to rural communities around the world in order to stim-
ulate food production and an animal industry.
5. Traditional commodity food products are designed to be economical. Specialty products
advertised to have added nutrient values (fortified) or consumer appeal (preparation ease)
typically have added costs. Specifications and regulations related to food origin, processing,
labeling, and handling to assure consumers that their food is wholesome, nutrient-fortified,
safe, and environmentally friendly necessarily add cost to our food supply.
6. Concerns about food production methods and food safety have increased interest in
“organic products.” Such products do provide additional options for consumers. Because
plant and animal foods produced to match the specifications for an “organic” label have
either lower productivity or higher input costs (or both), they typically cost much more than
commodity foods. Yet, no benefits based on scientific measurements in terms of nutrient
content, nutrient availability, presence of pesticide and herbicides, and food safety have
been demonstrated.
7. Elected legislators strive to maintain or reduce food prices for the public. These often
thwart food production. Such efforts must not compromise food quality, wholesomeness,
and safety. Governmental programs designed to provide economic protection for crop and
livestock producers in their own nation through subsidies (e.g., for biofuel production) and
import restrictions of seed and food (e.g., genetically altered products) by reducing trade
are limiting the supply of food, increasing its cost, and modifying farming practices inter-
nationally by altering commodity prices.
8. The impact of developments that continually remove arable land from production (estimated
at 1 million hectares annually in the United States; FAO, 2000) and the increased cost of
energy for local and international transport are presumed to have limited impact on food costs.
These topics require more attention and extensive production and economic modeling.
9. To meet the projected increase in demand for animal products worldwide, greater integra-
tion of feeding systems to fully use available feeds and biomass as well as strategic supple-
mentation of animal diets with nitrogen or non-protein nitrogen sources and with required
260 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

minerals, vitamins, and energy during certain critical periods should be encouraged.
Similarly, increased input of “best practices” in crop production, including use of geneti-
cally improved crops and application of adequate, but not excessive amounts of fertilizer
and water, can improve crop productivity while reducing their environmental footprint.
10. Most of the major world religions espouse sympathy for the sick, the sorrowful, the poor,
and the needy. Certainly, individuals deficient in calories and specific nutrients fall into
this group. Agricultural development teams are needed to serve around the globe to assure
long-term food security and enhance productivity of foods of plant and animal origin.

SUMMARY
The population of the world is increasing at a cumulative rate of 1.2% annually. In the next 50
years, the need for food will double, with much of that need being met by advances in science and
biotechnology. Of the total land on our globe, only about 13% is arable and readily suited for crop
production. Yet, only 39% of this arable land in the world currently is used for crop production with
the largest potential for expansion being in Central and South America and sub-Saharan Africa.
Various livestock species differ markedly in their capacity to consume and digest by-products and
forages and in the degree to which they compete with humans for nutrients and calories. Swine and
poultry in developed countries typically are fed diets composed of grain and oilseed by-products,
but herbivores can obtain a large fraction of their calories and protein needs through grazing and
consumption of fiber-rich crop by-products and industrial wastes. When fed crops suitable for direct
human consumption, animals compete with humans for calories and nutrients. However, when fed
by-products not suited for human consumption or when grazing forage produced on non-arable
land, animals do not compete with humans for calories and nutrients, but instead can add to the sup-
ply of food for humans (see Chapter 13 by Lardy and Caton in this book). This is particularly evident
in developing countries. Based on measured yields, crops differ widely in their capacity to convert
solar energy to food or feed energy. Calorie yields consistently are much greater for cereal grains
than for food crops suited for more immediate human consumption. The highest caloric yields per
hectare come from corn and rice, while the highest protein yields are obtained from soybeans.
Conversion of cropland from growing cereal crops to growing vegetables is limited by agronomic
(crop), environmental, and economic (labor, market) factors. In developing countries, crop yields
also are limited by crop management and inputs (fertilizer, insect and weed control), as well as the
environmental conditions (seasonal rainfall, temperature). The current supply of food is adequate to
feed all people on the globe. Nevertheless, inequitable distribution of food, crop failures, war, pes-
tilence, political barriers, and poverty are causing starvation among the poor and needy worldwide.
Economics of supply and demand for calories and nutrients will continue to drive feed and food
production where production, trade, and distribution are not restricted by governmental policies,
religious practices, and personal food preferences or concerns. Political pressures and protectionist
trade policies intended to obtain or maintain low food prices have failed to provide safe and abun-
dant food for consumers. Because technological advances in crop and animal productivity in a free
market system ultimately serve to benefit food consumers, not food producers, financial support of
agricultural research and extension practices to increase plant and animal productivity are critical
public investments for maintaining a safe, affordable, and abundant supply of food for the expand-
ing human population.

REFERENCES
Bath, D., J. Dunbar, J. King, S. Berry, and S. Olbrich. 2001. Byproducts and unusual feedstuffs. Feedstuffs 73:
30–37.
Beckett, J.L., and J.W. Oltjen. 1993. Estimation of the water requirement for beef production in the United
States. J. Anim. Sci. 818–826.
Competition between Animals and Humans for Cultivated Crops 261

Belsky, A.J., S.M. Mwonga, and J.M, Duxbury. 1993. Effects of widely spaced trees and livestock grazing on
understory environments in tropical savannas. Agroforestry Systems 24: 10–20.
Bremer, V.R., G.E. Erickson, and T.J. Klopfenstein. 2007. Meta-analysis of UNL feedlot trials replacing corn
with WDGS. 2008 Nebraska Feeders Report, pp. 39–40. http://beef.unl.edu/beefreports/2008.pdf
Capper, J.L., R.A. Cady, and D.E. Bauman. 2009. Demystifying the environmental sustainability of food pro-
duction. Cornell Nutrition Conf. pp. 174–190.
CAST (Council on Agricultural Science and Technology). 1999. Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply.
Ames, IA: CAST. http://www.cast-science.org/publicationsInfo.asp
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). 2009. The World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-
world-factbook/fields/2097.html Accessed April 2010.
Delgado, C.L. 2003. Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food
revolution. J. Nutr. 133: 3907S–3910S.
DePeters, E.J., J.G. Fadel, M.J. Arana, N. Ohanesian, M.A. Etchebarne, C.A. Hamilton, R.G. Hinders, M.D. Maloney,
C.A. Old, T.J. Riordan, H. Perez-Monti, and J.W. Pareas. 2000. Variability in the chemical composition of
seventeen selected by-product feedstuffs used by the California Dairy Industry. Prof. Anim. Sci. 16: 69–99.
Dozier, W.A. III, J.L. Purswell, M.T. Kidd, A. Corzo, and S.L. Branton. 2007. Apparent metabolizable energy
needs of broilers from two to four kilograms as influenced by ambient temperature. J. Appl. Poult. Res.
16: 206–218.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1995. Staple foods: What do people eat?
http://www.fao.org/docrep/u8480e/u8480e07.htm
FAO. 2000. Land Resource Potential and Constraints at Regional and Country Levels. World Soil Resources
Report 90. ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/wsr.pdf
FAO. 2002. Global pig numbers — World hog population. http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/7/markets-
andeconomics/858/global-pig-numbers-world-hog-population-2002
FAO. 2006a. Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/
a070le/a070le01.pdf
FAO. 2006b. World hunger increasing. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000433/index.html
FAO. 2009. The state of food insecurity in the world. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0876e/i0876e02.pdf
Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., S. Nonhebel, and W.P.M.F. Ivens. 2002. A method to determine land requirements relat-
ing to food consumption patterns. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90: 47–58.
Govindjee, and R. Govindjee. 2000. What is photosynthesis? http://www.life.illinois.edu/govindjee/whatisit.htm
IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 1993. Institutional and economic framework condi-
tions for livestock development in developing countries and their interrelationships. http://www.ifad.org/
lrkm/theme/husbandry/framework/framework_bib.htm
Klopfenstein, T.J., G.E. Erickson, and V.R. Bremer. 2008. Use of distillers by-products in the beef cattle feed-
ing industry. J. Anim. Sci. 86: 1223–1231.
Lappe, F.M. 1991. Diet for a Small Planet. 20th Anniversary Edition. New York: Ballantine Books.
Lubowski, R.N., M. Vesterby, S. Bucholtz, A. Baez, and M.J. Roberts. 2002. Major uses of land in the United
States. USDA-ERS. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14a.pdf
Nationmaster. 2005. World Development Indicators Database. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/
agr_ara_lan_hec-agriculture-arable-land-hectares&date=2005#definition
New Zealand Agricultural Statistics. 2010. Agricultural Production Statistics: June 2009. www.stats.govt.
nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/agriculture-horticulture-forestry/AgriculturalProduction_
MRJune10final.aspx
NRC (National Research Council). 1998. Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 10th Revised Edition. Washington,
DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Oltjen, J.W., and J.L. Beckett. 1996. Role of livestock in sustainable agricultural systems. J. Anim. Sci. 74:
1406–1409.
Oracle. 2000. An end to world hunger: Hope for the future. Team C002291. http://library.thinkquest.org/
C002291/high/present/stats.htm
OSU (Oklahoma State University). 2003. OSU feedlot performance program. http://www.beefextension.com/
files/FEEDLOT%20CALC.xls
Peters, C.J., J.L. Wilkins, and G.W. Fick. 2007. Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource
requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The New York State example.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22: 145–153.
Peters, G.M., H.V. Rowley, S. Wiedemann, R.Tucker, M.D. Short, and M. Schulz. 2010. Red meat production
in Australia: Life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44:
1327–1332.
262 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

Randolph, T.F., E. Schelling, D. Grace, C.F. Nicholson, J.L. Leroy, D.C. Cole, M.W. Demment, A. Omore,
J. Zinstag, and M. Ruel. 2007. Role of livestock in human nutrition and health for poverty reduction in
developing countries. J. Anim. Sci. 85: 2788–2800.
Schaafsma, G. 2000. The protein digestibility–corrected amino acid score. J. Nutr. 130: 1865S–1867S.
Simmons, J. 2009. Technology’s role in the 21st century: Food economics and consumer choice. Why agricul-
ture needs technology to help meet a growing demand for safe, nutritious and affordable food. Cornell
Nutr. Conf. pp. 159–173.
Smith, C.W. 2001. Rice. http://cwaynesmith.tamu.edu/agro306-500/materials/fall2010/topics/rice.10.1.evol.
types.ppt#274,1,Slide 1
Speedy, A.W. 2003. Global production and consumption of animal source foods. J. Nutr. 133: 4048S–4053S.
US Census Bureau. 2010. International Data Base: World population growth rates 1950–2050. http://www.
census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldgrgraph.php
USDA-ARS (Agricultural Research Service). 2010. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard
Reference, Release 23. Nutrient Data Laboratory Home Page, http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/
site_main.htm?modecode=12-35-45-00
USDA-ERS (Economic Research Service). 2010. Feed Grains Database. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/
FeedGrains/download.htm
USDA-FAS. 2011. World agricultural production archives. http://www.fas.usda.gov/wap_arc.asp
Whitney, M.H., G.C. Shurson, L.J. Johnston, D.M. Wulf, and B.C. Shanks. 2006. Growth performance and
carcass characteristics of grower-finisher pigs fed high-quality corn distillers dried grain with solubles
originating from a modern Midwestern ethanol plant. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 3356–3363.
 13 Crop Residues and Other
Feed Resources
Inedible for Humans but
Valuable for Animals
Gregory Lardy and J.S. Caton

CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 263
Historical Perspective.....................................................................................................................264
Ecological Balance and Sustainability............................................................................................264
Ruminant Animals.......................................................................................................................... 265
Feed Resources: Inedible for Humans, but Valuable for Animals.................................................. 267
Non-Arable Lands...................................................................................................................... 267
Crop Residues and Food-Processing By-Products..................................................................... 268
World Population Growth and Food Supply: The Role of Animals............................................... 270
Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................................. 272
References....................................................................................................................................... 272

INTRODUCTION
Domesticated livestock have been an essential integrated component of agriculture and human food
systems for thousands of years (Bradford, 1999). Ecosystems of both arable and non-arable lands
have developed in the presence of animals and consequently ecological succession is clearly shaped
by the plant–animal interface. Sustainable coexistence of plant and animal agriculture is under-
pinned by the health and well-being of each component. This is well illustrated by the “Ancient
Cow Contract,” which simply states that the herdsman contracts with his animals to provide hous-
ing, feed, safety, and care in exchange for milk, meat, fiber, and other products (Anderson, 2000).
Ruminant animals have and will continue to play a unique and essential role in the human–animal–
plant interface because of their diversity, adaptability, and ability to consume feedstuffs that are
inedible by humans. These types of feedstuffs are abundant and include forages, crop residues,
native grasslands, food-processing by-products, and other feed resources. A commonality shared
by these feedstuffs is that the microorganisms in the ruminant foregut can utilize them and the
microorganisms subsequently provide the animal with a source of nutrition. This unique symbiotic
relationship, which is, in fact, analogous to the Ancient Cow Contract, has played a pivotal and sus-
tainable role in providing food, fiber, and clothing for almost every civilization in recorded history.
The world population is expected to reach 7.7 billion by 2020 and nearly 9.2 billion by 2050 (United
Nations, 2008; medium variant). The majority of the projected population growth is expected to
occur in developing countries where the recent trends include increased per capita consumption
of animal products (CAST, 1999). Consequently, the demand for more efficient and effective pro-
duction of high-quality animal products will increase. Because of their unique ability to convert

263
264 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

non-edible products into high-quality, nutrient-dense foods for human consumption, animals, and
in particular ruminants, are expected to fill an increasingly significant and sustainable role in the
United States in the coming decades. The contribution of enormous quantities of inedible sources
of fibrous plants and other waste products on a global basis is addressed by Owens and Hanson in
Chapter 12 of this book.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Throughout history, ruminants have provided meat, milk, fiber, and a source of draft power to almost
every civilization. Even before animals were domesticated, hunting tribes relied on ruminants to
play a critical role in providing food, fiber, and clothing for tribe members and subsequently for
civilizations on almost every continent. Ruminants are able to exist in climates that range from bit-
ter cold Arctic environments to the tropics of Africa, Asia, and South America. Evidence of human
dependence upon animals abounds in the archeological records. Approximately 10,000 years ago,
livestock domestication began and was a critical component of the transition from hunter and gath-
erer to cultivating and shepherding foundations for societal life (Cambell and Lasley, 1975). Sheep
and goats (both ruminant species) were among the earliest livestock species domesticated. For early
human civilizations, having a ready supply of fresh meat and milk was a competitive advantage.
The domestication of cattle provided the added benefit of draft power, which added tremendously
to the ability to do physical work, including that of cultivation for agronomic purposes as well as
transportation of these crops and other goods to market.
With the advent of cultivation and the domestication of livestock, which were mutually comple-
mentary through draft power, and livestock’s consumption of inedible waste products, villages
flourished and a slow march toward urbanization began. The development of large cities was a slow
process with a major limiting factor being a steady supply of food. Consequently, during most of
history the majority of the population of most civilizations was engaged in agricultural activities.
However, through the industrialization of agriculture and the application of technological break-
throughs, progressively less of the population has been needed for the production of food supplies.
In developed countries, the rate of off-farm migration has rapidly accelerated during the last 50
to 100 years to a point where less than 1.5% of the population is directly involved in production
agriculture. Currently, an ever-growing emphasis is being placed upon sustainability, efficiency,
and integration of agricultural practices to ensure a consistent and safe food supply with minimal
ecological impact while optimizing the use of scarce resources including land, water, and other
inputs.

ECOLOGICAL BALANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY

Ecosystems of both arable and non-arable lands have developed in the presence of animals and
consequently ecological succession is clearly shaped by the plant–animal interface. Ecological bal-
ance is the concept of a dynamic equilibrium within a community of organisms where species and
ecological diversity remain relatively stable. In theory, good ecological balance and sustainable
agricultural practices should be mutually inclusive events. Sustainable coexistence of plant and ani-
mal agriculture is underpinned by the health and well-being of each component. Specifically within
agro-ecosystems, the utilization of materials inedible by humans as nutrient sources for livestock
helps provide ecological balance by providing mutual benefits for the animal, environment, and
human population alike. The concept of this mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship between
animals and humans within this context is historically present as the Ancient Cow Contract. While
most would say that the cow can never call the herdsman into account for a breached contract,
animals certainly “communicate” their acceptance of existing contract conditions in various ways.
These include increased productivity, behavior that reflects contentment, and improved health and
well-being.
Crop Residues and Other Feed Resources 265

From a broad perspective, animal agriculture contributes to human health and well-being in
numerous ways. These include the production of nutrient-dense foods, the conversion of inedible
plant materials from non-arable land, crop residues, and food processing by-products, by provi-
sion of draft power for cultivation and transport, vegetation management through grazing, waste
disposal and nutrient recycling functions, and several others (Bradford, 1999). Animals also add
tremendous value to the cropping sector. In fact, recent estimates (Harris et al., 2009) indicate that
livestock and cereal crops used for feed grains represent nearly 60% of the total agricultural receipts
in the United States. Critics of the use of livestock for human food production or the use of various
feedstuffs for feeding livestock often state that inefficiencies associated with feeding livestock for
food production coupled with extra environmental burdens posed by livestock operations should
preclude the long-term use of animal products as major food sources by developed modern societ-
ies. While this argument appears reasonable to some at first glance, a more in-depth investigation
of the underlying assumptions provides a different picture regarding the use of livestock to meet
growing human food demands.
Animal products (meat, milk, and eggs) are nutrient-dense and provide an excellent source of
essential amino acids, vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, B12, iron, calcium, zinc, and other
essential nutrients (CAST, 1997). Additionally, animal protein has a high biological value for
humans and, on a per unit basis, it is difficult if not impossible to match the biological value of
animal protein with proteins from plant food sources. While consumption of high-quality protein
diets from plant sources may be achievable on an individual or small-scale basis, the issue becomes
even more pointed when attempting to supply a high-quality, nutrient-dense food supply to large
populations. In addition, critics of the current and likely expanding role of animals in the provision
of human foods make the false assumption that all animals compete directly with humans for foods
on a per unit basis. This assumption, of course, is incorrect particularly in the case of ruminants,
which derive nutritional benefits from fibrous feedstuffs. It is also an incorrect assumption for non-
ruminant species as they have historically made and will continue to make extensive use of human
inedible resources (Westendorf, 2000) especially in the area of food processing by-products. When
calculating whole-animal efficiencies of protein production, non-ruminant animals are more effi-
cient compared with ruminants. However, when adjusting the calculations of efficiency of animal
protein production per unit of human edible food consumed by livestock, the calculations show a
distinct and unique advantage for ruminants for supplying high-quality, nutrient-dense foods for the
human population (CAST, 1999).
Feeding forages, crop residues, and agricultural by-products to ruminants in conjunction with
judiciously grazing non-arable lands is a component of good management and stewardship that
has health and well-being benefits for both humans and animals, while concomitantly providing
opportunities to maintain a desirable ecological balance. A non-exhaustive list of potential human,
animal, and ecological benefits of the human–animal partnership and of providing nutrients to live-
stock from crop residues and other resources that are inedible for humans but valuable for animals
is provided in Table 13.1. Unfortunately, as with any tool or practice placed in human hands, the
potential for misuse or abuse is always present. Therefore, in the practice of animal husbandry, care
must be taken to ensure that good stewardship principles and sustainable management practices that
are mutually beneficial are provided. If not, the risk for potential harm to one or more members of
the partnership increases. Concerning providing crop residues and other feed resources (including
grazing of non-arable lands) that are inedible for humans but valuable for animals, herbivores in
general and ruminants in particular maintain a distinct and competitive advantage among domestic
animals for these practices.

RUMINANT ANIMALS
Ruminant animals are herbivores that possess a unique arrangement of compartments in their
gastrointestinal tract which allows for pre-gastric fermentation of ingested materials (Van Soest,
266 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

TABLE 13.1
The Human–Animal Partnership and the Feeding of Crop Residues and Other Human
Inedible Feed Resources to Animals: Potentially Mutual Benefits to Human Well-Being,
Animal Welfare, and Ecological Balance
Potential Improvements in the
Human Health and Well-Being Animal Health and Well-Being Ecological Balance
Production of high-quality, nutrient-dense The provision of shelter and the Improved rangeland ecology though
foods, which are highly palatable and add protection from predators. proper grazing management.
diversity to the diet.
Conversion of plant materials from Access to a more reliable food Reductions in biomass that would
non-arable land, crop residues and food source and moderation of need to be burned, buried, or
processing by-products, and certain waste seasonal extremes in nutrient disposed of in some other way that
products, i.e., materials that humans cannot supply. could potentially have negative
eat or choose not to eat, into high-quality impacts on the environment.
food products thereby adding value.
Production of fibers, leathers, Improved animal health and care Potential reductions in environmental
pharmaceuticals, and a wide array of other through good feeding and nutrient loads.
products useful to humans. management practices.
Provision of waste disposal and nutrient Increased gastrointestinal health Production of manures, which are a
recycling functions, which contribute through feeding of high-fiber valuable source of organic plant
added value to production systems. feeds. nutrients and which reduce the need
for chemical fertilizers.
Provision of draft power for cultivation and Possible access to veterinary care Reduction and control of non-
transportation, relieving humans of some of when needed. desirable or invasive plant species
the heavy physical labor associated with to maintain a more desirable plant
crop production, and permitting more community.
timely planting and harvesting of crops.
Assisted vegetation management through Access to a more readily Control of excess plant biomass
grazing, which can have important available water source. resulting in reduced fire hazard.
environmental benefits, e.g., reduction of
fire hazard and maintenance of desired
plant communities.
Providing a means of savings and a food Additional protection for Positive movement toward ecological
reserve in times of crop scarcity, for offspring, including improved balance within rangelands and
agriculturalists not part of a monetary postnatal care. agro-ecosystems.
economy.
Contributing to the flexibility and thus Thriving and sustaining livestock
stability of food producing systems, and to communities that are supported
the total agricultural economy. by the consumption of feedstuffs
that do not directly compete
with the human population.

Source: Adapted and modified from Bradford, G.E. 1999. Contributions of animal agriculture to meeting global human
food demand. Livestock Production Science 59: 95–112.

1982; Hofmann 1988). Of all the herbivorous species of animals, ruminants are by far the most
numerous and important (Church, 1988). Ruminants are in the subclass referred to as ungulates
(hooved mammals) and in the order of Arteriodactyla (an even number of toes) and the suborder
of Ruminantia. The word ruminant is derived from the Latin ruminare, which means to chew over
again. Thus, ruminants are even-toed, cud-chewing mammals with hooves (Church, 1988). Crop
residues, forages, and food processing by-products are generally fibrous feedstuffs that contain large
amounts of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Ruminants can make excellent use of forages, crop
Crop Residues and Other Feed Resources 267

residues, and other feedstuffs inedible by humans because of the symbiotic relationship with the
ruminal microbial population and the resulting fermentation that occurs in this compartment of
the foregut. This ruminal fermentation produces short-chain fatty acids (volatile fatty acids; VFA)
through anaerobic action on primarily the cellulose and hemicellulose fractions of crop residues
(Owens and Goetsch, 1988). These fermentable fibers are associated with the plant cell wall and
represent structural components of the plants. The microbial population within the rumen thrives on
the fermentable fibrous fractions of dietary ingredients, including forages, crop residues, and other
high-fiber feedstuffs. The VFAs produced from microbial actions are a waste end-product of rumi-
nal fermentation; however, the VFAs are absorbed across the rumen wall and make their way to the
liver where they are metabolized to compounds useful to the host animal. Approximately 70 to 80%
of the energy used by ruminants is derived from these VFAs (Fahey and Berger, 1988). In addition
to the beneficial use of these microbial waste products, the microbial cells that undergo digestion in
the gastric and intestinal segments of the digestive tract provide a ready and highly digestible source
of essential nutrients to the host animal, including protein and water-soluble vitamins. Protein pro-
vided from the digestion of ruminal microbial cells in the small intestine provides the vast majority
of protein used by ruminant animals. Therefore, the ruminant animal receives a double benefit from
its symbiotic relationship with the resident microbial population: (1) the provision of VFAs and (2)
the provision of nutrients (protein, vitamins, and others) from digested microbial cells. While this is
the case for ruminant animals, it is not true for post-gastric fermenting herbivores such as horses or
rabbits. Those species represent post-gastric fermenters and only benefit from the microbial produc-
tion of VFA.
This ability to ferment high-fiber feedstuffs that are inedible for humans is a tremendous benefit
to ruminant animals, and has been capitalized on by humans for thousands of years. In addition,
this partnership has mutually beneficial attributes for both humans and animals while potentially
improving ecological balance (Table 13.1).

FEED RESOURCES: INEDIBLE FOR HUMANS, BUT VALUABLE FOR ANIMALS

Many grasses and other high-fiber plants, as well as by-products of cereal grains, soybeans, and
other crops processed for food or industrial use (e.g., bio-fuels) are inedible for humans, but are well
utilized by some animals, particularly ruminants. For the purposes of this chapter, we will discuss
two main categories of human inedible animal feed resources: (1) forages from non-arable lands,
and (2) crop residues and food processing by-products. Animals, and in particular, ruminants, are
able to utilize these feedstuffs as a source of nutrition. In almost all cases, these feed resources are
unfit for human consumption in their present form. Barriers to human utilization may be related to
nutritional composition (e.g., cellulosic, poor amino acid profile), access (not located in close prox-
imity to human populations; for example, seeds from native grasses), sheer quantity (some fractions
of crop processing by-products may be edible but the volume of the material requires feeding to
livestock in order to utilize them), or economic barriers (the economic cost of further processing
outweighs the current value as a human food ingredient).

NON-ARAblE LANDs
Non-arable lands make up the majority of the land types on the Earth’s surface. Estimates indicate
that approximately 11% of the Earth’s land area is cultivated, 24% is in permanent pasture, 31% is
forest or woodlands, and the remaining 34% is comprised of glaciated areas, mountain ranges, and
urbanized or industrialized land (Holechek, Pieper, and Herbel, 1989). Approximately 75% of the
Earth’s land surface has some sort of soil constraint, which limits or restricts its use as arable land
(FAO, 2000). These constraints include things such as terrain, drainage, or shallowness of soils.
Some of these constraints overlap, for example, some shallow soils may occur in areas with steep
terrain. Nonetheless, much of the Earth’s land surface is non-arable. Consequently, the sustainable
268 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

TABLE 13.2
Means and Standard Deviations of Laboratory Analysis of Upland Range Diet Samples
Collected at Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory in 1992 and 1994 (Organic Matter Basis)a
Sample Date CP (%) UIP (%) DIP (%) NDF (%) ADF (%) IVOMD (%)
JAN 6.3 0.8 5.5 83.6 52.5 58.0
MAR 6.0 1.0 5.0 82.5 53.3 54.8
APR 11.4 1.2 10.2 77.5 43.2 67.6
JUN 13.8 2.5 11.3 72.4 40.6 67.6
JUL 12.3 2.2 10.1 79.8 43.6 67.5
AUG 11.3 1.8 9.5 77.9 46.4 63.7
SEPT 7.4 1.1 6.4 79.7 48.8 60.7
NOV 5.9 0.7 5.2 84.4 56.1 48.3
DEC 6.5 1.2 5.4 86.0 54.5 53.9

Source: Modified and adapted from Lardy, G.P., and J.S. Caton. In press. Beef cattle nutrition in commercial ranching
systems. In: Ruminant Nutrition Production Systems. Paris: UNESCO Books.
a Each observation represents 4 to 7 diets collected from esophageal fistulated cows or steers with ruminal cannulae. CP,

crude protein; UIP, undegraded intake protein; DIP, degraded intake protein; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid
detergent fiber; IVOMD, in vitro organic matter disappearance. Dominant grass species included little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia), sand bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), switchgrass
(Panicum virgatum), sand lovegrass (Eragrostis trichodes), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and blue grama (Bouteloua
gracilis). Common forbs and shrubs include western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) and leadplant (Amorpha
canescens).

use of these lands will require sustainable grazing practices using ruminant livestock to produce
food and fiber for a growing world population. Much of the non-arable land in the world consists of
native rangelands or forested areas. Human inedible forage resources in these areas can be used by
ruminant livestock in a diversity of production systems. Because the grasses and forbs that grow on
these lands are composed primarily of cellulosic materials, the use of ruminant livestock is required
to convert them into a usable human food resource.
Grazed native forages exhibit wide variations in nutrient quality and quantity (Table 13.2).
Consequently, careful nutrient supplementation during periods of extensive grazing is often needed
and practiced to enhance livestock production efficiency and improve the utilization of grazed forages
from non-arable grazing lands (Caton, Freeman, and Galyean, 1988; Johnson et al., 1998). Numerous
food-processing by-products have played and will continue to play a major role in providing supple-
mental nutrients to animals in extensive grazing situations. These include soybean meal, cottonseed
meal, distiller’s grain by-products and other by-products from the ethanol and brewing industry, wheat
middlings, and many others. The rise of soybean meal from a waste product of the soybean oil industry
to one of the primary protein supplements used in the livestock industry is an amazing story. This rise
from waste material to high-value feedstuff is a common story for other crop processing by-products
having been repeated in numerous instances in the past and will most certainly occur again in the
future.

CROP REsiDUEs AND FOOD-PROCEssiNG BY-PRODUCTs

Crop residues include straws, stovers, and other plant materials associated with the production of
food crops. Large amounts of crop residues are produced annually and are generally low in energy
and protein and inedible by humans. During the processing of crops into foods and other prod-
ucts, large amounts of by-products are produced. Examples of these include sugar beet pulp, dis-
tiller’s grain by-products, oilseed meals, hulls and screenings, fiber and bran fractions, and many
Crop Residues and Other Feed Resources 269

other residues, which are generally inedible for humans, but are usable sources of nutrients for
livestock. Crop residues and food-processing by-products have widely variable nutrient composi-
tions (Table 13.3) and care needs to be taken when including them in livestock diets to ensure that
expected and actual nutrient compositions are in agreement. Crop residues are usually high-fiber
and low-protein products that are well suited for use in a variety of ruminant production systems.
On the other hand, many food-processing by-products, such as oil seed meals, are quite high in

TABLE 13.3
Nutrient Composition for Ruminants of By-Product Feedstuffs
Expressed on a Dry Matter Basis
Metabolizable Energy Crude Protein
By-Product (MJ/kg) (g/100 g)

Miscellaneous
Almond hulls 7.7 2.1
Bagasse 6.3 1.5
Beet pulp 12.6 9.7
Brans 12.8 17.2
Brewers grains 10.4 25.4
Citrus pulp 12.6 7.3
Whole cottonseed 16.0 23.0
Molassesa 11.8 7.2

Cakes
Soybean 13.8 49.9
Ground nut 12.5 52.3
Sunflower seed 10.3 49.8
Rape and mustard seed 11.0 40.6
Cottonseed 12.3 45.6
Palm kernelb 11.0 40.6
Copra 12.1 23.4
Sesame seed 12.5 49.1
Miscellaneous cakesb 11.0 40.6
Corn germ meal 11.9 22.3
Corn gluten feed and mealc 13.8 33.9
Soap stock oils 30.6 0.0

Crop residues
Wheat 6.3 3.6
Riced 6.2 4.3
Barley 7.2 4.3
Maize 7.4 5.9

Source: From National Research Council. 1989. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy

Cattle, 6th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; CAST. 1999.
Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply. Ames, IA: Council for
Agricultural Science and Technology. Task Force Report No. 135.
a Average of low-quality sugar cane molasses and molasses from sugar beets.

b Same as rape and mustard seed composition.

c Assume 20% corn gluten meal and 80% corn gluten feed.

d National Research Council (1984) used for rice crop residue.

270 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

amino acids and other nutrients and low in fiber, making them major components of non-ruminant
livestock diets.
Crop residues have been a staple ingredient in a variety of ruminant production systems worldwide. In
particular, cereal grain straws, corn stover, and other fibrous residues have been widely used in ruminant
production systems as both grazed and harvested feedstuffs. The choice to harvest or graze these mate-
rials depends on a variety of factors related to availability, cost, climate conditions, and mechanization.
Grazing these materials has the advantage of delivering nutrients back to the field in the form of manure
without fossil fuel inputs required in more intensive production practices. However, in many production
environments, snow cover or other weather conditions may limit grazing activities. Furthermore, the
need to provide properly formulated diets to optimize production may also require that crop residues,
straws, and stover be mixed with other dietary ingredients to provide a well-balanced diet.
A variety of methods for improving utilization of these fibrous residues has been tested over the
years. Application of various physical and chemical treatments can increase utilization of straws
and stover in particular, but in many cases, they are not cost effective under current production prac-
tices. In the future, it may be necessary to explore these and other methods of improving utilization
of these high-fiber materials because provision of high-quality animal protein products may require
improved utilization of such materials.
Many different types of food-processing by-products have been used in ruminant diets either as
supplements or as staple dietary ingredients. While the exact time when this practice began is not
known, it likely dates to civilizations that undertook various attempts at food processing as the need
to make use of these materials led those cultures to readily use them as feedstuffs.
Almost every food that is processed for use as a human food ingredient produces a correspond-
ing food-processing by-product. For example, the use of wheat for bread flour or durum to produce
semolina (used in pasta production) results in the production of a variety of wheat processing by-
products, which are commonly referred to as wheat middlings. This by-product finds widespread
use in a variety of ruminant and non-ruminant diets as a source of protein and energy. Processing
vegetables such as sweet corn for human use results in cannery waste, a high fiber, high-moisture
by-product commonly used in beef and dairy cattle production systems located near these canner-
ies and factories. The processing of citrus crops such as oranges for juice production results in the
production of citrus pulp, which is commonly fed to beef and dairy cattle in tropical locales.
There are many reasons why these materials are readily used in ruminant production systems
as opposed to use as human foods. In some cases, these materials are quite fibrous (e.g., sugar beet
pulp, rice bran), while in others poor protein quality may be a factor (e.g., corn processing by-
products such as corn gluten feed). In other situations, the sheer volume of the material precludes its
use in human food applications except in small quantities (e.g., by-products of ethanol production
from corn or other cereal grains, wheat middlings). In many cases, a combination of these and other
factors preclude wide-scale use of these materials in human food applications.
Food-processing by-products play an important role in many different ruminant production sys-
tems worldwide. As an example, with the advent of the fuel ethanol industry, the use of distiller’s
grain by-products from ethanol production as a feedstuff in beef and dairy cattle production systems
in the United States has risen from essentially nothing to volumes that rival the use of cereal grains.
Other products such as sugar beet pulp find widespread use in a variety of dairy cattle diets world-
wide because it is a relatively digestible source of fiber.

WORLD POPULATION GROWTH AND FOOD

SUPPLY: THE ROLE OF ANIMALS
World population projections estimate a population of 7.7 billion by 2020 and nearly 9.2 billion
by 2050 (United Nations, 2008, medium variant; Figure 13.1), which is roughly equivalent to an
average annual compound growth rate of 1.2%. The majority of this population growth (95%) is
expected to occur in developing countries, where over 75% of the world population lives and where
Crop Residues and Other Feed Resources 271

10,000,000

9,000,000

Projected Human Population

8,000,000

7,000,000

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year

FIGURE 13.1 Past records of world population growth to 2008 and projections for world population growth
from 2008 to 2050 (Data from United Nations. 2008. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision.
Population Division, Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis.)

TABLE 13.4
Past and Projected Trends for Consumption of Meat to the Year 2020
Total Meat Consumption (mt) Per Capita Meat Consumption (kg)
Region 1983 1993 2020 1983 1993 2020
China 17 39 89 16 33 63
India 3 4 8 4 4 7
Other East Asia 2 4 8 22 44 70
Other South Asia 1 2 5 6 7 10
Southeast Asia 4 7 18 11 15 28
Latin America 15 21 38 40 46 57
WANA 5 7 15 20 20 23
Sub-Saharan Africa 4 5 11 10 9 11
Developing world 50 89 194 15 21 31
Developed world 88 99 113 74 78 81
United States 25 31 37 107 118 114
World 139 188 306 30 34 40

WANA = Western Asia and North Africa.

Source: Adapted from CAST. 1999. Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply. Ames, IA: Council
for Agricultural Science and Technology. Task Force Report No. 135.

recent trends are for rapid increases in the consumption of animal products (CAST, 1999). In fact,
from the early 1970s into the mid-1990s, the increase in meat consumption in developing countries
was nearly three times the increase in developed countries (Delgado, 2003). Consequently, the
demand for animal products is projected to increase dramatically (Table 13.4) by 2020 and beyond.
In fact, increases in the demand for animal products by world populations have been clearly docu-
mented for several years (Bradford 1999; CAST 1999; Delgado, 2003). Delgado states that

by 2020, the share of developing countries in total world meat consumption will expand from 52% cur-
rently to 63%. By 2020, developing countries will consume 107 million metric tons (mmt) more meat
272 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

and 177 mmt more milk than they did in 1996/1998, dwarfing developed country increases of 19 mmt
for meat and 32 mmt for milk. The projected increase in livestock production will require annual feed
consumption of cereals to rise by nearly 300 mmt by 2020. (Delgado, 2003)

The rapid rise in world populations, increased growth of developing countries, and the con-
comitant rise in demand for high-quality animal products has begun what Delgado (2003) has
described as a “livestock revolution,” which, in terms of economic impact and nutrient supply to
the human population, will likely far outpace the “green revolution” of a few decades ago. The
projected increase in cereal grain production to fuel expanding livestock production for human
foods is based on existing proportions of cereal usages to produce animal products. Alternatively,
if a greater proportion of crop residues and food processing products were used as animal feeds in
conjunction with a larger proportional increase in ruminant livestock production, then projected
increases in cereal grain production for livestock feeds would be somewhat muted. Another impor-
tant fact to consider when viewing the overall importance of animal agriculture to nutrient supply is
the impact on economies. In the United States alone, the total economic value added to the economy
for all crops and livestock is approximately $281.6 billion with the combined impact of livestock
and feed grains representing 59% of the total (Harris et al., 2009; Wilson, Dahl, and Reynolds,
personal communication).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Ecosystems of both arable and non-arable lands have developed in the presence of animals and
consequently ecological succession is clearly shaped by the plant–animal interface. Sustainable
coexistence of plant and animal agriculture is underpinned by the health and well-being of each
component. The utilization of inedible feed resources for food animal production contributes
to both human and animal welfare by improving ecological balance and expanding animal and
human food resources. As we look to the future, it is critically important that society under-
stands and appreciates the unique ability of animals, particularly ruminants, to convert fibrous
materials to usable protein and fiber. Ruminant animals play an essential role in the well-being
of societies throughout the world. In fact, throughout history, ruminants have provided meat,
milk, fiber, and a source of draft power to almost every civilization and they will play a vital
role in meeting the needs for food, fiber, and clothing in the future. Since ruminants are able to
utilize a variety of forages and feedstuffs that other animals, including humans, cannot use, they
will play an increasingly valuable role in the provision of meat, milk, and fiber in the years to
come. The variety of forages and feedstuffs that can be utilized in ruminant diets allows them
to exist in every corner of the globe. Ruminants will increase in importance because of the roles
that they will play in solving many of the complex problems associated with world population
growth. As global population increases dramatically in the next 50 years, ruminant production
systems will play a pivotal role in providing a sustainable source of nutrients for much of the
world’s population.

REFERENCES
Anderson, N. 2000. The ancient cow contract—ergonomics, health and welfare issues in dairy cattle housing.
National Mastitis Council Regional Meeting Proceedings. pp. 17–24.
Bradford, G.E. 1999. Contributions of animal agriculture to meeting global human food demand. Livestock
Production Science 59: 95–112.
Campbell, J.R. and J.F. Lasley. 1975. The Science of Animals that Serve Mankind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
CAST. 1997. Contributions of Animal Products to Healthful Diets. Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science
and Technology. Task Force Report No. 119.
CAST. 1999. Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply. Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science and
Technology. Task Force Report No. 135.
Crop Residues and Other Feed Resources 273

Caton, J.S., A.S. Freeman, and M.L. Galyean. 1988. Influence of protein supplementation on forage intake, in
situ forage disappearance, ruminal fermentation, and digesta passage rates in steers grazing dormant blue
grama rangeland. J. Anim. Sci. 66: 2262–2271.
Church, D.C. 1988. The classification and importance of ruminant animal. In: The Ruminant Animal: Digestive
Physiology and Nutrition. D.C. Church, Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 1–13.
Delgado, C.L. 2003. Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food
revolution. J. Nutr. 133: 3907S–3910S.
Fahey, G.C. Jr. and L.L. Berger. 1988. Carbohydrate nutrition of ruminants. In: The Ruminant Animal: Digestive
Physiology and Nutrition. D.C. Church, Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 269–297.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2000. Land Resource Potential and Constraints
at Regional and Country Levels. FAO Report #90. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/wsr.pdf
Accessed November 30, 2010.
Harris, M., K. Erickson, J. Johnson, M. Morehart, R. Strickland, T. Covey, C. McGath, M. Ahearn, T. Parker,
S. Vogel, R. Williams, and R. Dubman. 2009. Agricultural Income and Finance Report, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, AIS-88, December 2009.
Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel. 1989. Range Management Principles and Practices. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hofmann, R.R. 1988. Anatomy of the gastrointestinal tract. In: The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology
and Nutrition. D.C. Church, Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, J.A., J.S. Caton, W.W. Poland, D.R. Kirby, and D.V. Dhuyvetter. 1998. Influence of season dietary
composition, intake, and digestion by beef steers grazing mixed-grass prairie in western North Dakota.
J. Anim. Sci. 76: 1683–1690.
National Research Council. 1984. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 6th ed. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Owens, F.N. and A.L. Goetsch. 1988. Ruminal fermentation. In: The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology
and Nutrition. D.C. Church, Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 145–171.
United Nations. 2008. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. Population Division, Department for
Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, United Nations, New York.
Van Soest, P.J. 1982. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. New York: Cornell University Press.
Westendorf, M.L. 2000. Food waste as animal feeds: An introduction. In: Food Waste to Animal Feed. M.L.
Westendorf, Ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, pp. 3–15.
Wilson, W., B. Dahl and L. Reynolds. Personal communication, North Dakota State University.
 14 Welfare, Health, and Biological
Efficiency of Animals through
Genetics and Biotechnology
Fuller W. Bazer, Duane C. Kraemer, and Alan McHughen

CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 275
Systems Biology........................................................................................................................ 276
Genetics and Genomics in Conventional Animal Breeding Programs........................................... 277
Biotechnologies for Enhancing Animal Health and Animal Production................................... 277
The Utility of Genetically Modified and Cloned Animals.............................................................. 279
Cloning....................................................................................................................................... 279
Genetic Engineering................................................................................................................... 281
Benefits from Producing Transgenic Animals........................................................................... 282
GE That Is Beneficial for Livestock and Humans................................................................. 282
GE That Is Beneficial Mainly for Livestock and Other Animals.......................................... 282
GE of Animals Mainly to Benefit Humans........................................................................... 282
Regulations for Genetically Engineered Animals...................................................................... 283
Biotechnology for Production of Improved Animal Feeds............................................................. 283
Introducing New Traits.............................................................................................................. 283
Limiting Pathogens or Reducing Antinutrients..........................................................................284
Unplanned Benefits of GE Crops...............................................................................................284
Contributions of Genetically Modified Animals to Society............................................................284
GloFishTM................................................................................................................................... 285
Enviropig™................................................................................................................................ 285
Harvard Mouse........................................................................................................................... 286
AquaBounty Salmon.................................................................................................................. 286
Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................................. 287
References....................................................................................................................................... 288

INTRODUCTION
Dramatic advances in systems biology, including genomics and other new knowledge of gene func-
tion and interactions with the environment are constructive forces in improving the health and
well-being of both humans and animals. The impact of these genetic effects and advances in bio-
technology on animal welfare are explored in this chapter. Long-term food security for animals and
humans will depend on advances in efficiency of animal and crop production resulting from bio-
technological breakthroughs. Without these efforts, food security for humans and animals will be
compromised due to the rapidly increasing human population and a diminishing amount of arable
land for production of agriculturally important species of plants and animals.

275
276 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

There is an urgent need for deep sequencing, mapping, and analyses of genomes of animals,
plants, and microbes of importance to both the agricultural and biomedical communities. The
human genome project has provided revolutionary insights for human health; however, an abundant
and safe food supply is fundamental to human health and quality of life. Thus, we must embrace
genomics, proteomics, and bioinformatics to explore genomes of animals, crops, and microbes that
affect human and animal health. Knowledge of the genome is the beginning, but the next chal-
lenge is to use genomic information to understand biology by using genomic sequences to decipher
the structure and function of proteins encoded by the genome. This will be achieved by fulfilling
the promise of systems biology.

SYsTEms BiOlOGY
Systems biology requires an interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary approach to understand complex
biological systems by interrogating the genome to understand how genome-based molecular pro-
cesses of cells are linked to higher biological functions. The goal is to understand the genomic
bases for low- and high-level function, normal versus abnormal, and disease-susceptible versus
disease-resistant specified by gene networks. With that knowledge, one can predict how a change
in expression of one gene or a few genes can change the whole organism. The extreme complex-
ity of biological systems requires that reliable predictions be based on outcomes of sophisticated
interrogation of the genome of a given species using supercomputing models. Using a combination
of statistics, supercomputing, and genome-based molecular biology, biologists, statisticians, and
engineers interact to define ways to predict how changes in the cellular environment alter the flow
of information through the multiple genome-based pathways controlled by various cell-­signaling
molecules. Using this approach, biology is expected to move beyond the descriptive stage to join
the quantitative sciences where prediction is based on understanding. The vision is to develop and
advance antecedent sciences and to transfer technology emanating from the interrogation and trans-
lation of genomics biology to improve human and animal health, production agriculture, food safety,
and biosecurity.
A primary goal of systems biology is to develop disease signatures that decode patterns of
genome-level activity that indicate the presence of a particular disease in humans and animals.
Translational genomics will then focus on discoveries for prevention, diagnosis, and therapeutic
strategies for treatment of inherited and pathogen-based diseases. Genome signal processing is an
outcome of a multidisciplinary approach to integrate understanding of genomics with theory and
methods of traditional signal processing that represent disease signatures or production animal agri-
culture signatures. These signatures are based on decoding patterns of genomic-level activity that
signal desired genome signal processing for desired production characteristics of animals used for
food, food biosecurity, and food safety for healthy animals and a healthy society.
Systems biology provides a key link between animal agriculture and medicine. As noted previ-
ously, knowledge of the human genome has provided revolutionary insights for improved human
health, but knowledge of genomes of animals through designed experiments will reveal the genetic
bases for resistance to disease and parasites and efficient animal production systems. Rapid advances
in understanding the genomic bases for extreme variation among individuals with respect to resis-
tance or susceptibility to disease and parasites and desired phenotype will be accelerated by orders
of magnitude using the power inherent in technologies of genomic signal processing. The use of
laboratory and domestic animals to do experiments that we are not able to do in humans will allow
scientists to unravel genomics and cellular networks responsible for such conditions as natural resis-
tance to diseases and parasites, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, neurological disorders, reproduc-
tive health, and nutritional and metabolic diseases. Functional genomics and proteomics will then
be used to develop therapeutic strategies to enhance the health and well-being of both humans and
animals, as well as strategies for ensuring a safe, abundant, and affordable supply of food to our
global society.
Welfare, Health, and Biological Efficiency of Animals through Genetics and Biotechnology 277

GENETICS AND GENOMICS IN CONVENTIONAL

ANIMAL BREEDING PROGRAMS
The value of animal agriculture en­terprises (poultry, livestock, and fish) in the United States was
estimated at $173 billion in 2007 (USDA, 2008a), with the value expected to increase together with
increases in both world popula­tion and standard of living (Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-Lorch,
1999). Although techniques for cloning and producing transgenic animals are becoming more effi-
cient, only commer­cial production of transgenic fish is poised to affect availability of food animal
protein in the near future.
Modern breeds of livestock have achieved high production efficiencies because of traditional
animal breed­ing programs. Between 1945 and 1995, for example, milk production increased three-
fold; egg production by laying hens increased from 134 to 254 per year; production time of broiler
chick­ens to 3 lb, 15.4 oz (1.8 kg) body weight decreased from 84 to 43 days on one-half the feed; and
growth of pigs, sheep, goats, and cattle was faster and resulted in leaner meat (National Research
Council, 2002, 2004). These increases can be attributed to various factors depending on species and
production systems, including:

1. The use of statistical models to pre­dict breeding values of bulls cou­pled with sire testing
and selection
2. Cross-breeding and artificial insemi­nation (AI) to capture the best ge­netics from males
3. Synchronization of estrus and ovu­lation to enhance use of AI
4. Superovulation, AI, and embryo transfer to take advantage of de­sired genetics from females
5. Artificial incubation of eggs of poul­try species to increase hatching rates
6. Improved nutrition
7. Effective disease control through improved animal health
8. Control of seasonality or photo-period to enhance production efficiencies in specific spe-
cies such as poultry
9. Improved housing to avoid stress resulting from adverse effects of weather
10. Sex reversal in fish to either all fe­male or all male to achieve desired production efficien-
cies in farm-raised fish

Since the 1960s, more advanced biotechnologies have been used to a limited extent. These bio-
technologies include assisted reproductive technolo­gies (in vitro maturation of oöcytes and in vitro
fertilization), embryo split­ting to achieve identical twins (clones), sexing sperm, and blastomere
nuclear transfer cloning (Norman et al., 2004). Recombinant bovine growth hormone is also a prod-
uct of biotechnology adopted by some in the dairy industry to sustain lactation performance of cows
(see National Research Council, 2004). The value of animal agriculture enterprises in the United
States and globally is expected to increase in concert with increases in both world population and
standard of living (Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-Lorch, 1999).

BiOTECHNOlOGiEs FOR ENHANCiNG ANimAl HEAlTH AND ANimAl PRODUCTiON

Sequencing and mapping genomes of livestock allows scientists to identify genes and understand
their regulation in the context of improving production characteristics and health of animals. One
outcome is establishment of linkages between inheritances of a desirable trait, for example, milk
yield, and segregation of specific genetic markers coupled to that trait. The use of marker-assisted
selection can be based on quantitative trait loci (QTL) or, within a QTL, identification of a single-
nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associated with desired traits. A QTL is a marker associated with
the presence of a gene of interest, for example for resistance to disease or growth and development
characteristics. An SNP is a change in a single nucleotide in DNA that results in a change in the
protein for which it encodes. A recent example was the discovery that the difference in size of
278 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

dogs (e.g., Great Danes and Chihuahuas) is due to differences in frequency of the SNP 5A allele of
insulin-like growth factor 1 (IFG1) (Sutter et al., 2007).
There are also QTL for production traits in cattle and swine. A growth hormone receptor variant
on bovine chromosome 20 affects milk yield and composition (see http://www.foodproductiondaily.
com/Supply-Chain/Gene-identified-to-regulate-milk-content-and-yield) and predicts an increase in
milk production of 200 kg per lactation and a decrease in milk fat from 4.4 to 3.4%. A QTL on the
long arm of pig chromosome 8, identified as secreted phosphoprotein 1 (SPP1 or osteopontin) is
associated with increased litter size (two pigs per litter) and increased prenatal survival of piglets
(King et al., 2003). An SNP in SPP1 has also been associated with growth traits and twinning in a
population of beef cows selected for high twinning rate (Allan et al., 2007). It is likely that identifi-
cation of additional QTL and SNPs will have a great impact on the livestock industry. This technol-
ogy can be coupled with biopsy and genetic analyses of pre-implantation embryos to allow one to
choose embryos with the desired genotype to enhance genetic progress in breeding programs. In
addition, embryos can be sexed to benefit the animal production enterprise, for example, all females
for dairy farms, or semen can be sorted as X chromosome and Y chromosome sperm to achieve the
desired sex of offspring.
Current estimates are that there are some 2500 unique genetic phenotypes in animals, exclud-
ing humans and mice (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals, http://omia.angis.org.au/) with
about one-half of them mimicking clinical features of known human genetic disorders. Advances
in genomic technologies continue to accelerate so that the current cost to sequence a genome is now
tens of thousands rather than millions of dollars and this can be done in days or weeks rather than
in months and years. The goal now is to sequence a genome for $1,000 in hours. Scanning genomes
for mutations, deletions, and duplications associated with disease in hours is now state of the art
technology to interrogate the genomes of animals.
Genomics biology has moved beyond sequencing the genome to defining gene products at the
transcriptional level using RNA-Seq or so-called next generation sequencing of the entire transcip-
tome of organisms. The transcriptome refers to all of the messenger RNAs encoded by genes in the
genome of an organism. In principle, RNA-Seq allows determination of the absolute quantity of
every molecule in an animal or population of cells. A powerful advantage of RNA-Seq is that it can
capture transcriptome dynamics across different tissues or conditions without sophisticated nor-
malization of data sets (Mortazavi et al., 2008). Therefore, it is used to monitor gene expression cell
growth and differentiation, track gene expression changes during development, and provide a “digi-
tal measurement” of gene expression difference between different tissues. RNA-Seq is invaluable in
advancing understanding of transcriptomic dynamics during development and normal physiological
changes, and in allowing for robust comparison between diseased and normal tissues, as well as the
subclassification of disease states. RNA-Seq allows study of complex transcriptomes to identify and
monitor changes in expression of rare RNA isoforms from all genes with greater coverage and depth
of sequencing while determining structure and dynamics of the transcriptome (Wang et al., 2008).
Copy number variations (CNVs) in alleles of genes is another focus in genomics because the
number of alleles of genes can vary due to deletions (no copy or fewer copies) or duplications (multi-
ple copies), which are associated with mutational mechanisms. CNVs may influence the evolution of
gene regulation with the potential to be the basis for causal variants on trait-associated haplotypes.
Available results suggest that resources be targeted to identifying genetic variation underlying the
“missing” heritability for complex traits that remains unexplained. Although common CNVs are
unlikely to account for much of this missing heritability, the strength of selection acting on exonic
and intronic deletions suggests that CNVs contribute to rare variants involved in common and rare
diseases, as well as variation in other aspects of the phenotypes of animals (Conrad et al., 2010).
The use of genome-based biotechnologies to enhance both animal health and animal production
characteristics is desirable in that one can capitalize on normal biological variation in a population.
This is done by comparing genomics of animals that are resistant and susceptible to disease or that
have high versus low production traits (e.g., milk yield) to identify genetic markers associated with
Welfare, Health, and Biological Efficiency of Animals through Genetics and Biotechnology 279

the desired phenotype and then using genomic markers in selection of genotypes that will favor the
desired phenotype (health status or production traits). Any controversy associated with cloning and
transgenic animals is avoided and the methodology can be applied to large populations of animals
used in food production enterprises.

THE UTILITY OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED AND CLONED ANIMALS

Cloning and genetic engineering are very different biotechnologies, but they are often combined in
discussions of ethics and animal welfare. Perhaps this is because they can be combined to produce
individual animals; however, they will now be discussed individually and then jointly.

ClONiNG
Cloning of animals is the production of genetically identical individuals. This can occur naturally
in the birth of identical (monozygotic) twins (or in the case of nine-banded Armadillos, quadru-
plets). Up to four identical cattle offspring have been produced by placing single blastomeres from
a 4-cell embryo into empty zona pellucidae (a membrane that normally surrounds early embryos),
developing them in vitro and then transferring them to different recipient females who carried the
pregnancies to term (Johnson et al., 1995). The most common current use of the term cloning refers
to the biotechnology often referred to as nuclear transfer. When the donor cells are from early stage
embryos (Willadsen 1986), it is referred to as embryonic cell nuclear transfer (ECNT). When the
cells are from fetuses, or juvenile or mature animals (Campbell et al. 1996; Wilmut et al. 1997), it
is called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). This involves the transfer of a nucleus from a cell
of the animal to be cloned into a mature oöcyte (ovum or egg) from which the nucleus has been
removed or possibly inactivated. Clones produced in this manner are less identical than those pro-
duced naturally, or by embryo splitting, because the mitochondrial DNA (primarily maternal from
the ovum) of the offspring is usually that of the recipient ovum, which is usually obtained from a
different female of the same or closely related species. Theoretically, it is possible to obtain both the
nucleus and the ovum from the same female, but the efficiency of the process is very low and the
numbers of ova available from a single female are too few to make this practical. It is important to
realize that the sperm mitochondria generally are not transmitted to the offspring. Therefore, even
though mitochondria of a male clone are not identical to the original nucleus donor, this difference
would not be a factor in the genetics of his offspring.
There are several methods for introduction of the donor cell nucleus into the enucleated (recipi-
ent) ovum. They include fusion of the donor cell with the recipient ovum. This can be performed
using micromanipulators to introduce the cell into the perivitelline space inside the zona pellucida,
followed by electrofusion of the two cells (Willadsen 1986; Wilmut et al., 2002). Alternatively,
this can be achieved by microjection of the nucleus, the nucleus plus part of the cytoplasm, or even
the entire donor cell directly into the recipient ovum (Lacham-Kaplan et al., 2000). Yet another
approach is to remove the zona pellucida from the recipient ovum by either micromanipulation or
enzymatic methods, followed by fusion of the donor cell by either chemical or electrical methods
(Vajta et al., 2001). These various approaches to nuclear transfer cloning vary between species and
laboratories. The main animal welfare concern is the relative inefficiency of the process that influ-
ences the large numbers of animals needed to produce the cloned offspring.
Numerous other factors influence the efficiency of the cloning process and the health of the
offspring. They include reprogramming of the nuclear DNA, initiation of cell division (activation),
in vitro culture of the resulting embryo prior to transfer to the recipient uterus, transfer of the
embryo to a recipient female (if mammals), plus delivery and postnatal care of the offspring and
recipient. Some of these, such as activation and embryo transfer, are fairly well developed for the
livestock species. However, others, such as reprogramming and embryo culture, are in need of fur-
ther improvements. Incomplete reprogramming of the donor cell DNA is probably responsible for
280 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

much of the embryonic and fetal loss during pregnancies and the developmental abnormalities that
are observed in approximately 20% of the offspring (Cibelli et al., 2002; Hill et al., 2002; Panarace
et al., 2007). It is important to realize these are the same abnormalities that occur naturally and
they are generally not passed on to the offspring of clones. From an animal welfare standpoint, it
is essential to have appropriate veterinary care available, or to euthanatize the abnormal offspring
humanely, just as should be done for naturally produced abnormal offspring.
One of the risks often mentioned in the use of cloning biotechnology is the reduction of genetic
diversity. However, this risk is a function of how cloning technology is used. If cloning is used to
produce offspring from valuable animals that cannot otherwise reproduce, it can actually increase
genetic diversity (Wells et al., 1998; Westhusin et al., 2007). Another example of this is the use
of donor cells from castrated cattle that exhibit outstanding carcass and meat characteristics such
as tenderness and flavor that are difficult to measure in live animals. Somatic cells can be col-
lected from these animals several days after their death (if the carcasses are cooled) and used to
produce breeding bulls that could transmit the desired genetic components of these traits to their
offspring.
It is important to realize that genetically identical animals are not phenotypically identical. This
is true of naturally born animals and those animals that are produced using biotechnologies such
as cloning. This is mainly due to epigenetic factors that influence how the genes are expressed (i.e.,
when and in which cells they are turned on or turned off).
In January 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) published Guidance for Industry
(179); Use of Animal Clones and Clone Progeny for Human Food and Animal Feed (USD HHS,
2008). The FDA’s CVM had previously published a risk assessment titled “Animal Cloning: A
Risk Assessment” (US FDA, 2008a). This publication addressed the impact of SCNT on the
health of animals involved in the process, and on humans and animals that consume the products
of animal clones and their progeny. The risks were evaluated in the context of the use of other
artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs) and conventional animal agriculture. This publica-
tion includes over 800 references and is available online (http:www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/
SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/ucm124840.htm). Also in January 2008, the FDA published an
article on its Consumer Health Information Web page (www.fda.gov/consumer) stating that “meat
and milk from clones of cattle, swine (pigs), and goats, and the offspring of clones from any spe-
cies traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals.”
It also points out that “the main use of clones is to produce breeding stock, not food” (US FDA,
2008b).
Most international governmental agencies that have considered the safety of human consump-
tion of food products from animal clones and their offspring agree that their products are as safe as
products produced naturally by members of their species. However, there is reluctance to approve
the marketing of these products for a variety of reasons other than food safety. The USDA has
continued its voluntary moratorium on marketing cloned animal food products (USDA, 2008b),
primarily over concerns for the impact on foreign markets for U.S. products.
On October 19, 2010, a “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and The
Council on Animal Cloning for Food Production” was published (http://www.euractiv.com/eu/cap/
parliament-calls-eu-ban-cloning-food-news-496089). It indicates that the Commission will propose
temporary (5 years) suspension of the use of the cloning techniques in the European Union (EU)
“for the reproduction of all food producing animals; the use of clones of these animals; and the
marketing of food from clones,” and to “Establish the traceability of imports of semen and embryos
to allow farmers and industry to set up data bank(s) of offspring in the EU.” Cloning would remain
possible for all purposes other than for food production such as research, pharmaceutical produc-
tion, and animal conservation. This recommendation is not based on information that food products
of clones and their offspring are unsafe, but that there is a need for more information on the subject.
Their main concerns are apparently animal welfare and ethics.
Welfare, Health, and Biological Efficiency of Animals through Genetics and Biotechnology 281

A major welfare issue about the cloning procedure is that only 20 to 30% of pregnancies continue
to term; approximately 25% of the pregnant recipients develop hydrops; 20 to 25% of offspring have
developmental abnormalities; and 30 to 40% of the calves die before 150 days of age (Panarace et
al., 2007) Most of these problems are thought to be due to errors in reprogramming of the DNA
of the donor cell after its incorporation into the cytoplasm of the recipient ovum. This is an area
undergoing considerable research, and improvements in efficiency of SCNT will probably be made
during the next five years. The International Embryo Transfer Society has published recommenda-
tions titled “Health Assessment and Care for Animals Involved in the Cloning Process” (IETS,
2008). It recommends that the pregnancies be monitored carefully and that abnormal pregnancies
be terminated as early as possible to minimize the adverse health effects on the recipient female and
to prevent the birth of unhealthy offspring.
One of the ethical concerns is consumer awareness and labeling. The major cloning compa-
nies in the United States addressed this issue by developing a Livestock Cloning Supply Chain
Management Program. It complies with the continuing USDA voluntary moratorium on marketing
of food products from cloned cattle and pigs. The program includes an animal cloning registry and
an incentive program to encourage participation by their clients.

GENETiC ENGiNEERiNG
Recombinant DNA technologies provide a broad array of opportunities for improvement of human
health and animal health and well-being. Among those opportunities is the production of transgenic
animals, which are among a variety of genetically modified organisms often referred to as GMOs.
This activity is sometimes identified as genetic engineering (GE) or gene (DNA) transfer. The
objective is usually to add, remove, or rearrange DNA to modify its function or that of its products.
An advantage of this technology is that one can modify a single gene locus without perturbing the
remainder of the genome. This topic has been extensively reviewed by scientists working in this area
(Robl et al., 2007; Laible, 2009; Wall et al., 2009; Thompson et al., 2010), review panels established
by agencies of the U.S. government (National Research Council, 2002, 2004), and industry (Council
for Agricultural Science and Technology, 2010).
The five basic methods for gene transfer in animal production are described briefly as follows:

1. Pronuclear injection: This was the first method for production of transgenic animals. It was
first used in mice and then applied to livestock (Pursel et al., 1989). It involves injection of a
DNA construct into the sperm (male) pronucleus of the recently fertilized ovum (zygote). A
disadvantage of this method is that there is limited control of the site, or number of copies
of the construct integrated into nuclear DNA.
2. Viral vectors: Replication defective viral vectors, most recently lentiviral (Lois et al., 2002;
Hofmann et al., 2004), are incorporated into the construct. These constructs may be intro-
duced into the perivitelline space of the ovum or zygote, and they deliver the DNA to the
nucleus of the zygote. These viral vector systems are being intensively studied to improve
their effectiveness and to evaluate their safety.
3. Sperm-mediated: Because spermatozoa bind exogenous DNA, they can be used to medi-
ate gene transfer at the time of fertilization (Perry et al., 1999). The efficiency of this
approach may be increased by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) following disrup-
tion of the sperm membrane prior to incubation with the DNA to be transferred. Other
approaches such as electroporation, liposomes, monoclonal antibodies, and restriction
enzymes are being explored to improve the efficiency of this method of gene transfer
(Lavitrano et al., 2006).
4. Combining gene transfer and cloning: The donor somatic cells can be genetically engi-
neered using a variety of methods including electroporation or viral vectors. Transgenetic
offspring are then produced by SCNT (Lai et al., 2002). The advantage of this method is
282 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

that multiple genetic modifications can be made and validated before the nucleus is trans-
ferred. A disadvantage is that SCNT is not very efficient.
5. Ectopic DNA transfer: Direct administration of gene constructs, or transgenic stem cells
into non-reproductive tissues of fetuses or living animals will result in transgenic ani-
mals, but they are not germ line transgenic (Draghia-Akli et al., 2002; Khan et al., 2002).
Although these procedures may have profound effects on the individuals, the transgenic
traits are not passed on to future generations via the gametes, as is the case for the other
methods.

For all of these methods, DNA constructs are prepared in vitro. These constructs vary consider-
ably, but most contain the gene of interest (which can be from any species), a promoter segment
that influences the location in the body and timing of expression (function) of the gene, enhancer
sequences that amplify gene function, and often a marker gene that can be used to detect incorpora-
tion of the DNA into the genome of the animal. A recent addition to construct design is the use of
RNA interference (RNAi) technology to control gene function (Long, 2010).

BENEFiTs FROm PRODUCiNG TRANsGENiC ANimAls

There are numerous benefits from producing transgenic livestock. In some cases, there is benefit to
both the animals and humans. In others, the benefit may be to animals only, or to humans only.

GE That Is Beneficial for Livestock and Humans

Genetically engineering animals with resistance to zoonotic diseases is expected to reduce the inci-
dence of these diseases in animals, thereby improving their health and well-being, as well as reduc-
ing the possibility of those diseases, if zoonotic, being transmitted to humans. Likewise, production
of recombinant vaccines against the zoonotic diseases for use in livestock would reduce animal
suffering and reduce human exposure, as well as serve as models for the development of vaccines
for use in humans. Of the known 69 zoonotic diseases in 28 species of animals, at least 60 of those
occur in livestock and poultry (see FASS, 2010). Notable examples of these diseases are brucellosis,
tuberculosis, salmonellosis, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, cholera, and rabies (Golding et al.,
2006; Richt et al., 2007). An example of a GE modification that fits into this category is mastitis
resistance in dairy cattle (Wall et al., 2005).
Genetically engineering animals to produce food and fiber more efficiently might reduce the total
number of animals used in animal agricultural enterprises, thereby reducing their negative impact
on the environment. This impact can also be reduced by genetically modifying the environmentally
damaging waste products produced by livestock and other animals (Golovan et al., 2001). Animal
transgenesis can also be used to produce animal models for biomedical research that provides basic
information for improving human and animal health and well-being.

GE That Is Beneficial Mainly for Livestock and Other Animals

Genetically engineering animals for resistance to non-zoonotic diseases would benefit animals pri-
marily, but would give comfort and economic benefits to their owners (see Council for Agricultural
Science and Technol­ogy, 2010). An example of this type of modification is pseudorabies virus-
resistant pigs. This is also true for genetically engineering animals to be more adaptive to their
environment, especially if global warming continues.

GE of Animals Mainly to Benefit Humans

Animals that are genetically engineered to improve food products, such as decreased saturated fats
in meat and milk would benefit the consumer. Livestock producers and the consuming public would
be the main beneficiaries from GE changes that increase feed efficiency and product quantity and
quality. Animals that are genetically modified to produce medicines in their milk or organs for
Welfare, Health, and Biological Efficiency of Animals through Genetics and Biotechnology 283

transplantation to humans would clearly benefit humans more than the animals (USDA, 2008b).
However, some of the pharmaceuticals are likely to be beneficial for treating animals.

REGUlATiONs FOR GENETiCAllY ENGiNEERED ANimAls

Clearly, there are numerous situations and circumstances in which GE would improve the well-
being of animals, both domestic and wild. If livestock producers are to meet the demands for live-
stock products in the future while maximizing the well-being of livestock and other animals, it
will be important to use the biotechnologies of GE and cloning wisely. In January 2009, the FDA-
CVM published Guidance for Industry Number 187 titled “Regulation of Genetically Engineered
Animals Containing Heritable Recombinant DNA Constructs” (FDA-CVM, 2009). This publica-
tion contains non-binding recommendations to guide the industry regarding heritable constructs.
It states that the FDA intends to regulate non-heritable constructs in much the same manner as for
heritable constructs. It points out that the USDA Animal Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regu-
lates DNA constructs that are veterinary biologics, and that the EPA may assert jurisdiction over
certain GE animals as well. In addition to the regulation of cloning and genetic engineering by the
FDA, USDA, and other federal agencies, all research on the biotechnologies must have approval
of local Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, which evaluate the protocols, inspect the
facilities and animals, and monitor compliance of the investigators (FASS, 2010).

BIOTECHNOLOGY FOR PRODUCTION OF IMPROVED ANIMAL FEEDS

GE for the ultimate benefit of animals started with genetic transformation of microbes and plants.
That is, feed plants or microbes to produce improved inoculants, vaccines, and so forth were geneti-
cally modified with the intention of enhancing the well-being of the consuming animal. Here we
describe some examples of the use of GE to improve animal welfare without directly modifying
the animal. GE is used to introduce new genes, giving rise to novel traits due to the presence of the
associated proteins, and to reduce the presence of pathogens or metabolites responsible for diseases
or undesired traits, respectively.

INTRODUCiNG NEw TRAiTs

In theory, GE might be used to improve animal feeds by augmenting or enhancing content of
certain nutrients, such as amino acids (e.g., increased lysine in cereals and cysteine/methionine
in legumes). Such nutritional enhancements would reduce the need for feed supplementation
with the respective amino acids. However, as supplementation is routine for deficient feeds any-
way, the net result on the animal is likely to be minimal, with the benefit accruing mainly in
the form of cost savings and convenience to the producer, who would no longer have to supple-
ment the bulk feed. An early example of using biotechnology methods to modify feed, from the
1980s, was the proposed development of transgenic tannin synthesizing “bloat free” alfalfa to
benefit ruminants consuming fresh alfalfa. However, although the biochemistry and physiology
of bloating is reasonably well understood, the means to achieve the goal remains elusive. Several
groups have developed transgenic alfalfa with modulated protein digestibility, especially via the
implicated tannins in various ways, but none of these has proved sufficiently efficacious as to
warrant commercialization.
A more recent and more promising example of feed improved through adding genetic mate-
rial addresses the phytate, problem. Feed for monogastric animals (e.g., pigs, chickens, and fish)
contains the elemental nutrient phosphorus, but about one-half to three-fourths of the phosphorus
is bound in indigestible phytate, making it nutritionally unavailable. The undigested phosphorus
is eliminated in the feces, which then can end up polluting agricultural lands and waterways. This
problem is exacerbated with the excess phosphorus leaching into ground water, causing fish kills,
284 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

algal blooms, and other undesirable environmental effects. However, the problem can be addressed
using phytase, an enzyme that breaks down phytate, allowing the phosphorus to be digested by the
animal. In conventional practice, phytase or more readily digestible phosphorus is often added as a
supplement to the monogastric feed to make up for the deficiency caused by the nonavailability of
phosphorus in the phytate. Now, however, several transgenic plants, including rice and corn, have
been developed that produce phytase directly. These are now undergoing agronomic testing, but
have already been awarded biosafety certificates in China, where they may be released for cultiva-
tion soon, in spite of activist opposition (Hepeng, 2010). Having phytase present in the feed will
render superfluous the need to add supplemental phytase.
Similar approaches to improving animal feed qualities are being applied to, for example, improv-
ing digestibility of glucans in barley, oats, and rye (Zhang et al., 1999). Alternatively, poor quality
feed might be improved by modifying cellulose (Hall et al., 1993). However, modified feeds using
these approaches have yet to reach the marketplace.

LimiTiNG PATHOGENs OR REDUCiNG ANTiNUTRiENTs

In addition to adding useful genes to improve feeds directly, GE can restrict certain pathogens or
anti-nutrients. In this mode, instead of inserting a gene construct coding for a protein/trait of inter-
est, GE inserts nucleic acid segments to interact with and metabolize or otherwise interfere with
the expression of the undesirable feature. The most promising group of these methods include vari-
ous forms of RNAi, using specific RNA sequences to interfere (hence, “RNA interference”) with
endogenous protein synthesis (Rana, 2007). This approach to reducing or removing undesirable
features might target anti-nutritional factors, such as excessive trypsin inhibitors, saponins, phytate,
oxalates, or complex carbohydrates. One example of using RNAi attacks pathogen development in
mice by designing an RNA sequence designed to interfere with a specific gene on the pathogenic
genome required for disease establishment (Pfeifer et al., 2006). This strategy is being used in
offering protection from several pathogens, especially viral pathogens and even bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) (Richt et al., 2007).

UNPlANNED BENEFiTs OF GE CROPs

One unplanned animal health benefit of GE crops has been the use of Bt corn as an animal feed. The
initial design of Bt corn was to make the corn withstand depredation by insect pests, initially corn
borer and, later, other target pests such as rootworm. When ultimately commercialized, the modi-
fied corn also showed a dramatic reduction in fungal pathogen infections, with a consequently dra-
matic reduction in mycotoxin content, especially fumonisins (Wu, 2008). While the obvious benefit
of this unintended effect was noted for human consumption, especially in poorer countries lacking
regulatory filters of the ubiquitous mycotoxins, animals also benefit from feed corn carrying fewer
of these toxins. For example, fumonisins promote leukoencephalomalacia in horses and porcine
pulmonary edema in pigs (Wu, 2008). In addition to modifying plants, animals benefit from various
modified microbes, for example as vaccines or as supplements to enhance silage and other feeds.
Some microbial products increase lactate and reduce pH to reduce diarrhea. However, an analysis
of microbial supplements, adjuvants, and vaccines is beyond the scope of this chapter.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ANIMALS TO SOCIETY

Rabbits, sheep, pigs, and mice were among the first animals genetically engineered a quarter
century ago (Hammer et al., 1985a,b), but unlike transgenic crop plants being developed contem-
poraneously, transgenic animals have not successfully secured major segments of the food and
agriculture market. To date, the only transgenic vertebrate animals in commerce are companion
animals, including the green fluorescent protein (GFP)-producing zebrafish (GloFish™), and Alba,
Welfare, Health, and Biological Efficiency of Animals through Genetics and Biotechnology 285

a transgenic GFP-producing bunny acquired by Chicago artist Eduardo Kac under suspicious cir-
cumstances from French researchers and displayed as modern high tech “art” (http://www.ekac.
org/gfpbunny.html#gfpbunnyanchor). Alba’s death in 2002 was similarly controversial (http://www.
wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/08/54399), as was the intensity of the rabbit’s green glow in
a popular online photograph. Other mammals (such as mice and pigs) have been transformed with
this same GFP construct, but do not seem to have reached celebrity status or even the marketplace.
Curiously, such genetic alterations to the genomes of these animals are hardly adaptive or use-
fully pragmatic, and certainly do not appear to benefit the animals in question. One must wonder
how long a small glowing fish would last in a natural environment shared with predators. At the
same time, the GFP does not appear to harm the animal, although there is scant research into
this question. Perhaps even more curiously, there is no record of any regulatory approvals or even
regulatory oversight on these transgenic animals, apart from FDA disavowing them (see later dis-
cussion under “GloFish”). Regarding animal welfare, one might question the validity of using a
controversial technology, rDNA, solely to create a living scientific curiosity to satisfy the artistic
expression of an individual human’s ego (as in the case of Alba). One might argue that companion
animals are already genetically manipulated by humans, using classical animal breeding strat-
egies, to serve human esthetic purposes (i.e., breeding out aggressive or other natural features
unpleasant or undesirable from the human perspective, while breeding in features that serve no
benefit to the animal other than make them more esthetically appealing to the ephemeral and
fluctuating whim of human fashion and style). Such breeding is often benign (e.g., fur color pat-
terns in fully domesticated companion mammals), but some are often detrimental to the welfare
of the animal (e.g., those resulting in maladaptive skeletal or physiological features in companion
canines). Nevertheless, here is a sample of some representative transgenic animals in or near com-
merce, starting with GloFish.

GlOFisHTM
The glowing zebrafish (GloFishTM) was transformed with fluorescence genes similar to those
inserted into Alba’s genome, and is certainly a commercial success. Since its release in the United
States in 2003, the domestic aquaria stars have become available in three glows (red, orange, and
green), each derived from bioluminescence genes isolated from marine organisms. At the time of
GloFish’s initial commercial release, FDA released a statement concerning the regulation of the
glowing companion animals:

Because tropical aquarium fish are not used for food purposes, they pose no threat to the food supply.
There is no evidence that these genetically engineered zebra danio fish pose any more threat to the
environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been widely sold in the United States.
In the absence of a clear risk to the public health, the FDA finds no reason to regulate these particu-
lar fish. (http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/
GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm161437.htm).

ENViROPiG™
The Enviropig™ is a transgenic line of Yorkshire pigs expressing phytase, giving them the ability
to digest plant phosphorus in phytate more efficiently than conventional swine. Enviropigs produce
the phytase in the salivary glands and it is then secreted in the saliva (Golovan et al., 2001). When
cereal and soy grains are consumed, the phytase mixes with the feed as the pig chews. The phytase
is active in the acidic environment of the stomach, thus degrading virtually all of the phytate in
the feed (Forsberg et al., 2003). With this transgenic animal, feeds will not require special mixing,
treatment, or supplementation with phytase, and the environmental management of manure would
be substantially simplified. Adding a phytase gene to facilitate phosphorus availability and reduce
286 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

pollution is being pursued in other animals, such as fish (Hostetler et al., 2005) and chickens (Cho
et al., 2006). The Enviropig is now under regulatory review prior to commercial release.

HARVARD MOUsE
The Harvard mouse, or “OncoMouseTM”, is a commercially available transgenic mouse engineered
to readily develop cancer and thus serve as a research tool for oncologists and others investigating
the onset and progress of tumors in mammalian models. The Harvard mouse cannot be considered
a companion animal, and certainly not a human food source. However, as a research tool, it is on
the market. From the perspective of animal welfare, it is unlikely that a genetic predisposition to
generate neoplasms could be considered in any way beneficial to the mouse.

AQUABOUNTY SAlmON
In September 2010, FDA announced its approval (after over 10 years of “deliberation”) of the
transgenic Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.), which grows to market size faster than non-trans-
genic salmon. Thus, this fish is likely to become the first transgenic food animal in commercial
production and on consumer’s dinner plates. The Atlantic salmon, designated AquAdvantageTM,
carries a growth hormone gene from its relative Chinook salmon, driven by a promoter from the
cold-water inhabiting ocean pout. The intent of the engineered salmon was to have it grow to mar-
ket size faster than its non-transgenic brethren; hence, the growth hormone and, importantly, the
cold-water functional promoter. In the wild, the production of growth hormone in normal salmon
diminishes as the water temperature drops, so the growth rate also slows. With the addition of
the ocean pout promoter to the hormone gene, growth hormone synthesis continues apace even in
colder water (the natural home of the ocean pout) and so the salmon continue to grow. They do not
grow to monster size, as feared by some, but instead stop growing at normal size; they just reach
that size sooner.
The main concern with these fish is the potential for harm to natural salmon in the event of them
escaping into the wild environment. The stated fear is that the transgenic salmon would outcompete
their non-GE relatives for food or mates and come to dominate the population to the detriment of
non-GE salmon. Although studies suggest the GE fish would not succeed in the wild, the developers
have acceded to skeptics’ concerns and arranged to farm the transgenic fish in landlocked pens, and
to grow only triploid females, incapable of reproducing. The FDA briefing packet concerning the
details of AquAdvantage salmon, including the FDA regulatory procedures outline and findings,
are posted at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/
VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224762.pdf.
The FDAs environmental assessment for the AquAdvantage salmon is at: http://www.fda.gov/down-
loads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/
UCM224760.pdf.
Various other fish and mammals have been transformed; the ability to insert any given gene
construct to introduce a given trait into a species and have it grow into a whole, live, fertile adult is
not a technological obstacle. The objectives of these various transgenic animal developments vary
from simple research experiments using simple marker genes to using the animals as bioreactors
to manufacture pharmaceuticals (usually expressed in the milk of mammals, to facilitate isolation
and purification of the pharmaceutical), to enhancing the growth of the animal for use as feed or
food, to improving the environmental footprint of the animal; for example, in making the feces less
environmentally damaging. Few of these transformations are directed at improving the animal’s
well-being directly, although some clearly do so as a secondary benefit; for example, those facilitat-
ing feed digestion or those producing bacteriostatic compounds in the milk that benefit the animal.
Transgenic goats producing lysozyme with bacteriostatic properties against mastitis-causing bacte-
ria, for example, incidentally benefit from the technology (Maga et al., 2006).
Welfare, Health, and Biological Efficiency of Animals through Genetics and Biotechnology 287

Early reports on transgenic mammals producing lactoferrin, known to have broad-spectrum anti-
microbial activity, gave hope that the transgenic protein would provide some resistance to infections
responsible for mastitis in cattle or diarrhea in pigs (see http://www.agnet.org/library/ac/1999d/).
Such outcomes would clearly have an animal welfare benefit. Unfortunately, transgenic animals
expressing exogenous lactoferrin do not appear to be sufficiently protected for that technology to
have commercial value (Hyvönen et al., 2006). However, transforming mammals to biosynthesize
lactoferrin is being pursued, not for the benefit of the transgenic animal itself, but as a means to
generate large quantities of lactoferrin for other commercial uses (Yang et al., 2008) and to serve
as an antimicrobial lactoferrin supplement to feed (Lin et al., 2010). Moreover, transgenic animals
are being created to synthesize various proteins and metabolites, especially in their milk, but most
of these are to facilitate production, isolation, and purification for commercial use and not for the
direct benefit of the transgenic animal (Sabikhi, 2007). One exception, where the objective is to ben-
efit the animal directly, involves transgenic cattle producing lysostaphin in their milk, which kills
Staphylococcus aureus, a major pathogen giving rise to mastitis (Wall, Powell, and Paape, 2005).
There are many other examples of potentially useful transgenic animals, including insects, mice,
cattle, etc., but those are either not intended for marketing or they have not yet completed the regula-
tory review processes required prior to commercialization. In addition, a range of insects, mosqui-
toes, worms and other lower animals have been genetically transformed for various purposes over
the past several years (usually with marker genes and used purely for research purposes, or else
attempting to attenuate disease vectoring capacity). A discussion of those organisms is beyond the
scope of this chapter. As for determining the impact of transgenesis on the welfare of these animals,
considering that some are pests or pathogens, it is hindered by the lack of objective measures for the
well-being of these species.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Biotechnology has many dimensions that, in the context of animal welfare, can be used to improve
traits for production (meat and milk production), health and well-being (resistance to disease
and parasites), esthetic value (various breeds of dogs and other companion animals), and novelty
(GloFishTM). These technologies may capitalize on the enormous biological variation among ani-
mals within a species for various phenotypes that may allow identification of genetic markers to
allow one to select for desirable traits or against undesirable traits. Having identified desirable genes
or genotypes, one can then use classical animal breeding, transgenics, or cloning to gain significant
numbers of animals with desirable genotypes and phenotypes. There are genetic outcomes that ben-
efit the animal in the case of resistance to disease and parasites; however, most outcomes are real-
ized and exploited only if they benefit production animal agriculture, medicine (Harvard mouse),
the environment (EnviropigTM), pharmaceutical industry (biopharming pharmaceuticals from
milk), human desire for novel animals (GloFishTM), or unique companion animals (many breeds of
dogs and cats). It has also been noted that plants and microbes have been genetically engineered to
enhance qualities that benefit both animals and producers of livestock species.
Society is most uncomfortable with technologies such as transgenesis and cloning of animals and
the scientific society recognizes that much needs to be learned to overcome problems with these tech-
nologies before either the public at large or the scientific community can accept them. Nevertheless,
we have noted that results of numerous studies have indicated that products of cloned or transgenic
livestock should be recognized as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), which is a criterion used to
assess the safety of plants and plant products that each of us consume on a daily basis.
The evidence is that our global population is rapidly moving from 6 billion to 9 billion, increas-
ing affluence is accompanied by increased demand for animal protein, and wild fish populations are
severely over-harvested. Therefore, it seems prudent that we continue to use genomics, transgenesis,
and cloning as “tools” in modern animal breeding to realize the most output from the fewest num-
bers of animals and with the fewest inputs of feedstuffs for which humans and animals compete.
288 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

We aspire to capitalize on energy from the sun to produce foods and there is no doubt that textured
vegetable proteins will become increasingly important in diets of future generations. Until then, we
must employ best practices in production animal agriculture and aquaculture to meet demands of
our global societies for adequate, safe, and affordable sources of high-quality animal protein.

REFERENCES
Allan, M.F., Thallman, R.M., Cushman, R.A. et al. 2007. Association of a single nucleotide polymorphism in
SPP1 with growth traits and twinning in a cattle population selected for twinning rate. J Anim Sci 85:
341–347.
Campbell, K.H., McWhin, J., Ritchie, W.A., and Wilmut, I. 1996. Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a
cultured cell line. Nature 380: 64–66.
Cho, J.K., Choi, T., Darden, P.R. et al. 2006. Avian multiple inositol polyphosphate phosphatase is an active
phytase that can be engineered to help ameliorate the planet’s “phosphate crisis.” J Biotechnol 126:
248–259.
Cibelli, J.B., Campbell, K.H., Seidel, G.E. et al. 2002. The health profile of cloned animals. Nature Biotechnol
20: 13–14.
Conrad, D.F., Pinto, D., Redon, R. et al. 2010. Origins and functional impact of copy number variation in the
human genome. Nature 464: 704–712.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technol­ogy (CAST). 2010. Ethical implications of animal biotechnology:
Considerations for animal welfare decision making: Animal agriculture’s future through biotechnology.
Issue Paper 46. Ames, IA: CAST.
Draghia-Akli, R., Malone, P.B., Hill, L.A. et al. 2002. Enhanced animal growth via ligand-regulated GHRH
mygenic-injectable vectors. Fed Am Soc Exp Biol J 16: 426–428.
Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). 2010. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in
Research and Teaching, 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: FASS (http://www.fass.org).
Forsberg, C.W., Phillips, J.P., Golovan, S.P. et al. 2003. The Enviropig physiology, performance, and contribu-
tion to nutrient management advances in a regulated environment: The leading edge of change in the pork
industry. J Anim Sci 81: E68–E77.
Golding, M.C., Long, C.R., Carmell, M.A. et al. 2006. Suppression of prion protein in livestock by RNA inter-
ference. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 5285–5290.
Golovan, S.P., Meidinger, R.G., Ajakaiye, A. et al. 2001. Pigs expressing salivary phytase produce low-phos-
phorus manure. Nature Biotech 19:741–745.
Hall, J., Ali, S., Surani, M.A. et al. 1993 Manipulation of the repertoire of digestive enzymes secreted into the
gastrointestinal tract of transgenic mice. Nature Biotechnol 11: 376–379.
Hammer, R.E., Brinster, R.L, Rosenfeld, M.G. et al. 1985a. Expression of human growth hormone-releasing
factor in transgenic mice results in increased somatic growth. Nature 315: 413–416.
Hammer, R.E., Pursel, V.G., Rexroad, C.E. et al. 1985b. Production of transgenic rabbits, sheep and pigs by
microinjection. Nature 315: 680–683.
Hepeng, J. 2010. Chinese green light for GM rice and maize prompts outcry. Nature Biotech 28: 390–391.
Hill, J.R. Chavatte-Palmer, P., Cibelli, J.B. et al. 2002. Pregnancy and neonatal care of cloned animals. In:
Principles of Cloning, Vol.1. J. Cibelli, Ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 247–266.
Hofmann, A., Kessler, B., Ewerling, S. et al. 2004. Efficient transgenesis in farm animals by lentiviral vectors.
EMBO Rep 4: 1054–1060.
Hostetler, H.A., Collodi, P., Devlin, R.H. et al. 2005. Improved phytate phosphorus utilization by Japanese
medaka transgenic for the Aspergillus niger phytase gene. Zebrafish 2: 19–31.
Hyvönen, P., Suojala, L., Orro, T. et al. 2006. Transgenic cows that produce recombinant human lactoferrin in milk are
not protected from experimental Escherichia coli intramammary infection. Infect Immun 74: 6206–6212.
International Embryo Transfer Society Health and Sanitary Advisory Committee (IETS). 2008. Health
Assessment and Care for Animals Involved in the Cloning Process. Savoy, IL: International Embryo
Transfer Society.
Johnson, W.H., Luskutoff, N.M., Plante, Y. et al. 1995. Production of four identical calves by the separation of
blastomeres from an in vitro derived four-cell embryo. Vet Rec 137: 15–16.
Khan, A.S., Fiorotto, M.S., Hill, L.A. et al. 2002. Maternal GHRH plasmid administration changes pituitary
cell lineage and improves progeny growth of pigs. Endocrinology 143: 3561–3567.
King, A.H., Jiang, Z., Gibson, J.P. et al. 2003. Mapping quantitative trait loci affecting female reproductive
traits on porcine chromosome 8. Biol Reprod 68: 2172–2179.
Welfare, Health, and Biological Efficiency of Animals through Genetics and Biotechnology 289

Lacham-Kaplan, O., Diamente, M., Pushett, D. et al. 2000. Developmental competence of nuclear transfer cow
oocytes after direct injection of fetal fibroblast nuclei. Cloning 2: 55–62.
Lai, L., Kolber-Simonds, D., Park, K.W. et al. 2002. Production of α-1, 3-galactosyltransferase-knockout
inbred miniature swine by nuclear transfer cloning. Science 295: 1089–1092.
Laible, G. 2009. Enhancing livestock through genetic engineering — Recent advances and future prospects.
Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Disease 32: 123–137.
Lavitrano, M., Busnelli, M., Cerrito, M.G. et al. 2006. Sperm-mediated gene transfer. Reprod Fertil Develop
18: 19–23.
Lin, C.Y., Yang, P.H., Kao, C.L. et al. 2010. Transgenic zebrafish eggs containing bactericidal peptide is a
novel food supplement enhancing resistance to pathogenic infection of fish. Fish Shellfish Immunol 28:
419–427.
Lois, C., Hong, E.J., Pease, S., Brown, E.J., and Baltimore, D. 2002. Germline transmission and tissue-specific
expression of transgenes delivered by lentiviral vectors. Science 295: 868–872.
Long, C.R. 2010. Application of RNA interference-based gene silencing in animal agriculture. Reprod Fertil
Dev 22: 47–58.
Maga, E.A., Cullor, J.S., Smith, W. et al. 2006. Human lysozyme expressed in the mammary gland of trans-
genic dairy goats can inhibit the growth of bacteria that cause mastitis and the cold-spoilage of milk.
Foodborne Pathog Dis 3: 384–392.
Mortazavi1, A., Williams, B.S., McCue, K. et al. 2008. Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes
by RNA-Seq. Nature Methods 5: 621–628.
National Research Council. 2002. Animal Biotechnology: Science-Based Concerns. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council. 2004. Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods; Approaches to Assessing Unintended
Health Effects. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Norman, H.D., Lawlor, T.J, Wright, J.R. et al. 2004. Performance of Holstein clones in the United States.
J Dairy Sci 87: 729–738.
Panarace, M., Aguero, J.I., Garrote, M. et al. 2007. How healthy are clones and their progeny: 5 years of field
experience. Theriogenology 67: 142–151.
Perry, A.C., Wakayama, T., Kishikawa, H. et al. 1999. Mammalian transgenesis by intracytoplasmic sperm
injection. Science 284: 1180–1183.
Pfeifer, A., Eigenbrod, S., Al-Khadra, S. et al. 2006. Lentivector-mediated RNAi efficiently suppresses prior
protein and prolongs survival of scrapie-infected mice. J Clin Invest 116: 3204–3210.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. and Pandya-Lorch, R. 1999. Securing and sustaining adequate world food production
for the third mil­lennium. In: World Food Security and Sustainability: The Impacts of Biotechnology and
Industrial Consolidation. D.P. Weeks, J.B. Segelken, and R.W.F. Hardy, Eds. NABC Report 11. Ithaca,
NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, pp. 27–48.
Pursel, V.G., Pinkert, C.A., Miller, K.F. et al. 1989. Genetic engineering of livestock. Science 244:
1281–1288.
Rana, T.M. 2007. Illuminating the silence: Understanding the structure and function of small RNAs. Nature
Rev Mol Cell Biol 8: 23–26.
Richt, J.A., Kasinathan, P., Hamir, A.N. et al. 2007. Production of cattle lacking prion protein. Nature Biotech
25: 132–138.
Robl, J.M., Wang, Z., Kasinathan, P.L. et al. 2007. Transgenic animal production and animal biotechnology.
Theriogenology 67: 127–133.
Sabikhi, L. 2007. Designer milk. Adv Food Nutr Res 53: 161–198.
Sutter, N.B., Bustamante, C.D., Chase, K. et al. 2007. A single IGF1 allele is a major determinant of small size
in dogs. Science 316: 112–115.
Thompson, P.B., Bazer, F.W., Einsiedel, E.F., and Riley, M.F. 2010. Ethical implications of animal biotech-
nology: Considerations for animal welfare decision making. In: CAST Issue Paper 26. Ames, IA:
CAST.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008a. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2017. http://www.ers.usda.
gov/publications/oce081/oce20081.pdf (25 January 2010).
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008b. Statement by Bruce Knight, Under Secretary for Marketing and
Regulatory Programs of FDA Risk Assessment on Animal Clones. Office of Communications Release
No. 0012.08.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine.
2008. Guidance for Industry 179: Use of animal clones and clone progeny for human food and animal
feed. USD HHS/FDA/CM.
290 Animal Welfare in Animal Agriculture

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). 2008a. Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment. http://www.fda.
gov/animalveterinary/safetyhealth/animalcloning/ucm055489.htm
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). 2008b. FDA approves first human biologic produced by G E
Animals. FDA Veterinarian Newsletter XXIII(VI).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine (US FDA-CVM). 2009. Guidance for
Industry 187; regulation of genetically engineered animals containing heritable recombinant DNA con-
structs. Communications Staff, Rockville, MD.
Vajta, G., Lewis, I.M., Hyttel, P. et al. 2001. Somatic cell cloning without micromanipulators. Cloning 3:
89–95.
Wall, R., Laible, G., Maga, E. et al. 2009. Animal productivity and genetic diversity: Cloned and transgenic
animals. In: CAST Issue Paper 43. Ames, IA: CAST.
Wall, R.J., Powell M.J., and Paape, D.A. 2005. Genetically enhanced cows resist intramammary Staphylococcus
aureus infection. Nature Biotech 23: 445–451.
Wang, J., Wang, W., Li, R. et al. 2008. The diploid genome sequence of an Asian individual. Nature 456:
60–66.
Wells, D.N., Misica, P.M., Tervit, H.R. et al. 1998. Adult somatic cell nuclear transfer is used to preserve the
last surviving cow of the Ederby Island cattle breed. Reprod Fertil Dev 10: 369–378.
Westhusin, M.E., Shin, T., Templeton, J.W. et al. 2007. Rescuing valuable genomes by animal cloning: A case
for natural disease resistance in cattle. J Anim Sci 85: 138–142.
Willadsen, S.M., 1986. Nuclear transplantation in sheep embryos. Nature 320: 63–65.
Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A.E., McWhin, J., Kind, A.J., and Campbell, K.H. 1997. Viable offspring derived from
fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385: 810–813.
Wilmut, I., Beaujean, N., DeSousa, P.A. et al. 2002. Somatic cell nuclear transfer. Nature 19: 583–586.
Wu, F. 2008. Field evidence: Bt corn and mycotoxin reduction. ISB News Report, February.
Yang, P., Wang, J., Gong, G. et al. 2008. Cattle mammary bioreactor generated by a novel procedure of trans-
genic cloning for large-scale production of functional human lactoferrin. PLoS ONE 3: e3453.
Zhang, J.X., Meidinger, R., Forsberg, C.W. et al. 1999. Expression and processing of a bacterial endoglucanase
in transgenic mice. Arch Biochem Biophys 367: 317–321.
 450

400

350

300
$ billions (1999 dollars)

250

200

Cash receipts (adj)

150 Production expenses (adj)
Farm Production Balance (adj)
100

50

-
1929

1959
1962
1956
1932

2004
1953

1965

1980
1938
1941

1968

1974
1977

1986

1995
1998
2001
1944
1947
1950

1971

1983

1989
1992

2007
1935

(50)

COLOR FIGURE 11.1 Farm production balance in the United States, 1929–2007. (From USDA/ERS. Chart
by Ken Meter, 2009.)

7
Ag Area US Ag Area World
Arable, Forest, & Pasture per capita, acres

Pastures US Pastures World

6 Arable US Arable World
Forests US Forests World

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

COLOR FIGURE 12.1 Per capita availability of arable, pasture, and forestland in the United States and the
world during the past century. (From Food and Agriculture Organization, 2010.)
 1200
Rainfed Arable Worldwide, 38% of
1000 arable land is cropped!
Cropped
Hectares, millions 800

600 64%

400
54% 63%
200 15% 64%
15%
160%

a
ls

a
t

e
a

ic
as

ic
ifi

p
ic

ra

er

ro
er
rE
fr

c
U

Pa

Eu
A

m
of
ea

lA

A
n

a
N

E
ra

si

th
ra
a,

A
a;
ha

or
nt
si
ic
Sa

N
Ce
A
fr
b-

d
Su

an
h
ut
So

COLOR FIGURE 12.2 Arable and crop land worldwide and by region. (From Food and Agriculture
Organization, 2000. World Soil Resources Report 90.)

40,000
Barley Corn Oats
Rice Sorghum Soybeans
Yield, Mcal Digested Energy/Hectare

35,000
Wheat

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

COLOR FIGURE 12.3 Capture of digestible energy per hectare in crops harvested from various cereal
grains and soybeans in the United States from 1980 to 2009.
 1,200
Barley Corn Oats
Rice Sorghum Soybeans
1,000 Wheat
Yield, kg protein/Hectare

800

600

400

200

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

COLOR FIGURE 12.4 Protein yields per hectare from various crops in the United States from 1980 to 2009.

40,000

Corn grain
35,000

30,000
Yield, Mcal/hectare

25,000
Potato
20,000
Onion

15,000 Carrot
Sweet potato
Tomato
10,000 Pepper
Cabbage
Watermelon
Lettuce
5,000 Cantaloupe
Sweet corn
Broccoli
Blueberry
Asparagus
0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

COLOR FIGURE 12.5 Energy capture in edible megacalories per hectare by corn grain, various fruits and
­vegetables, and berries from 1985 to 2008. (From USDA/ERS, 2010; USDA/ARS, 2010.)
 1,200

1,000 Soybean
Yield, kg protein/hectare

800

600 Potato
Tomato
Onion
Cabbage
400 Lettuce
Carrot
Broccoli
Pepper
Sweet potato
200 Sweet corn
Cantaloupe
Watermelon
Blueberry
Asparagus
0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

COLOR FIGURE 12.6 Protein yields per hectare for food crops and soybeans from 1985 to 2008. (From
USDA/ERS, 2010; USDA/ARS, 2010.)

30
Feedlot cattle
Feedlot pigs
Lifetime cattle
25 Lifetime pigs
Broilers
Tissue/Grain Calories, %

20

15

10

0
30 50 70 90 110
Grain in Finishing Diet, % of DM

COLOR FIGURE 12.7 Feedlot phase versus lifecycle caloric efficiencies for various animal products.
(Based on data from Whitney et al. (2006), J. Anim. Sci. 84: 3356–3363; Bremer et al. (2007), 2008 Nebraska
Feeders Report, pp. 39–40; Dozier et al. (2007), J. Appl. Poult. Res. 16: 206–218; and Klopfenstein et al.
(2008), J. Anim. Sci. 86: 1223–1231.
AGRICULTURE/ANIMAL SCIENCE

Animal Welfare in
Animal Agriculture
Husbandry, Stewardship, and Sustainability in Animal Production

What constitutes animal welfare? With animals being used for companionship,
service, research, food, fiber, and by-products, animal welfare is a topic of great
interest and importance to society. As the world’s population continues to increase,
a major challenge for society is the maintenance of a strong and viable food system,
which is linked to the well-being and comfort of food animals. Animal Welfare in
Animal Agriculture: Husbandry, Stewardship, and Sustainability in Animal
Production explores the pressing issue of farm animal welfare in animal production
systems in the United States and globally.

A framework for open discussion on animal welfare, this multidisciplinary book

brings together the perspectives of 40 highly qualified and recognized experts in
their respective fields. Fourteen chapters address a range of topics that includes
ethics, sociology, food safety, ecology, feed resources, biotechnology, government
regulations, and sustainability, as well as animal comfort, health, and contributions
to society. The book also offers a historical perspective on the growth of animal
agriculture from family farms to industrial animal agriculture—and the impact this
has had on society. Illustrating the diversity of viewpoints, the concept of animal
welfare is defined from the perspectives of an ethicist and philosopher, a research
scientist, a veterinarian, an industrialist, and an activist, as well as from the
perspective of sustainability and product quality.

Written primarily for students, but also highly relevant for professionals in varying
fields of academia and industry, this timely book reveals important insights into
animal welfare and animal agriculture. Unique in its depth, breadth, and balance, it
underscores the need for dialogue on wide-ranging and often contentious issues
related to animal production systems.

K12159