Abstract

Consumers are certain to have input and influence on a number of issues that confront the livestock and poultry industries. This paper focuses on consumer concerns and their influence on animal welfare issues. Ignoring consumer concerns can reduce the overall sustainability of a particular system or practice. Issues of concern to consumers include: routine management procedures that inflict pain onto livestock, management systems that confine and restrict movement of our poultry and animals, and environments in which animals can not satisfy a number of behavioural needs or where they display behaviours indicative of suffering. Many routine painful procedures could include methods for mitigating pain. Some procedures could be avoided altogether through genetic selection, such as selecting for polled animals to eliminate need for dehorning or by selecting strains that show reduced tendencies to feather peck or tail bite thereby eliminating need to beak trim chickens or tail dock swine. The formation of neuromas following amputation of tails and after beak trimming suggest that we may be inadvertently subjecting some of our production animals to chronic pain. Some standards that set absolute limits on what is and is not allowed may be needed to prevent industries from becoming desensitized to accepting practices and systems that compromise animal welfare for economic gains. Fast food chains (very large consumers) are certain to have an influence on livestock systems and practices used by suppliers and some features are certain to disappear (i.e. forced moulting, gestation stalls, overcrowding in cages) because of increasing public pressure. The best options for addressing welfare issues are to 1) develop a proactive approach aimed at educating producers on animal welfare issues 2) set uncompromising standards 3) support research aimed at developing economically viable welfare friendly alternatives 4) develop incentives for welfare friendly operations and 5) work with consumer groups and label products.

pg 244

Introduction

There are a variety of issues and concerns voiced by consumers (or non farmers) that relate to livestock production. The topics range from GMOs, food safety and antibiotic resistance to concerns about pollution, sustainability and animal welfare. Each topic in itself is worthy of discussion and in each of these areas society is certain to have some input and exert some influence on how agriculture and animal production will advance. This paper focuses on consumer concerns and their influence on animal welfare issues.

Consumers always right!

Currently, if a rural municipality is hesitant to approve the construction of a new intensive livestock or poultry operation based on environmental fears, then as producers we scramble to assure the neighbors that odor control and ground water pollution will be handled using state of the art technologies with the highest level of manure management possible to protect the environment. And when it comes to the final consumable product, most livestock producers would readily agree that the consumer should have the ultimate say. We rely on surveys to learn about consumer tastes and preferences and industries usually strive to satisfy consumer cravings. If consumers indicate they may consume more of a product if it came in more convenient packages, or if it was a microwaveable product, or if it had smaller or fewer servings per package, if it was more juicy, tender, etc. we immediately develop new products to meet the findings from the survey. In addition, consumers are given the highest level of assurance in regards to food quality and food safety. We have been told time and time again that the consumer is the key to the whole equation and that ultimately the consumer is right. Therefore, it seems somewhat ironic that while most people in the industry would scramble to satisfy the consumer's nose and palate, there are many within the industry who would dismiss consumer concerns in regards to animal welfare, citing as an excuse that welfare concerns originate from an "uniformed public".

Consumer concerns about animal welfare issues

I do not believe we can have it both ways. We can not expect to have consumers that are welcome to express sentiments about a product's taste and wrong to question a product's production. Consumers should be able to voice concerns about animal welfare issues and know that those concerns would be addressed and taken seriously. Consumers are concerned about routine management procedures that inflict pain onto livestock. Consumers are concerned about management systems that confine and restrict movement of our poultry and animals. Consumers are concerned about systems that place animals in environments in which they can not satisfy a number of behavioural needs and where animals display behaviours indicative of suffering. More and more people, especially younger generations, somewhere around 2% (Toppo, 2001), are choosing a vegetarian diet. Whatever their reasons, their choice should not be the result of the industry's welfare record, environmental record, food safety record, or any item under our control.

pg 245

There is a cost to the livestock industry if animal care and animal welfare issues are ignored. In simple terms, ignoring animal welfare issues is a public relations nightmare. Don Broom, Professor of Animal Welfare at the University of Cambridge has written that ignoring animal welfare issues actually shortens the sustainable lifetime of current systems. Some systems such as intensive livestock production units may have animal welfare advantages in that animals may be cleaner and disease may be easier to prevent or control, ideal environmental temperatures maybe easier to maintain, etc., but if the public sentiment builds up against a system because of perceived welfare problems then the lifetime of the system is shortened, since the public will lobby to abolish the system.

Some would suggest that educating the public about our production systems is one way to bring consumers on side with producers. Education is a valuable tool for producers and the general public alike, but I personally do not hold much faith in the notion that public education will work towards the gradual decline in society's criticism of some practices. It is not always the lack of information that causes people to be upset with livestock practices. In fact the opposite may be true. For some people the more they know about the practices and systems that are being used in the livestock industry the more upset they become with the information. For example, many people do not know that castration of our domestic livestock is usually done without analgesics. How could we educate the general public on this issue and improve our public relations? We know the procedures are painful and we know there are ways to mitigate pain. So no amount of education will likely change people's belief that we should perform routine procedures without using analgesics.

Mitigate pain in routine procedures

Should we try to mitigate the pain that livestock may experience during routine procedures? Surely the animals recover! In terms of animal welfare the pain associated with branding, castration or tail docking may in fact represent only a very little blip in an animal's entire "tank" of lifetime experiences. Nevertheless humans can empathize with animals in regards to pain because pain is one sensation that humans also experience. Based on comparative anatomy, physiology and behaviour we assume pain experienced by animals to be similar to pain experienced by humans (Flecknell and Molony, 1997). As humans, we know what pain is and in general, humans avoid as much pain as possible. Given the choice many people will opt for analgesics when faced with dental or surgical procedures. Historically many human procedures were done without analgesics, however once they became common, available and affordable people readily embraced their use. We use analgesics to spay and neuter our pets, a procedure the general public is familiar with, so it is not surprising that the general public is concerned about our lack of attempts to mitigate pain in farm animals. Historically, we had no choice. Now choices are available and they deserve consideration.

pg 246

Every livestock industry has a list of routine procedures that inflict some pain (e.g. branding, castration, dehorning, teeth clipping, beak trimming and tail docking). There is a general belief that procedures performed early in life are less painful. Even in human medicine it was once common to perform open heart surgery on neonates without anesthesia. We now know that infants recover faster when procedures are done with analgesics on board prior to the procedure. There is no evidence that pain is absent in young animals (Rollin, 1989), but there may still be sound reasons to complete routine procedures at the earliest age possible. We have known for sometime that the younger the animal at the time of injury or procedure the faster the wound healing (Johnstone, 1944). Even if the pain of the procedure was identical at all ages, the total amount of suffering would be less for the younger animal since the healing is faster. Performing procedures as early as possible and mitigating pain for our farm animals are steps that society would support. The general belief that anesthesia is expensive and time consuming may not be as valid an argument as once believed. Kohler, et. al. (1998) have demonstrated that general anesthesia is fast and safely induced with CO2 in piglets and castration can be performed without any reaction.

Not surprising, the more we know about painful procedures the more we realize that the pain experienced by the animal is more complicated than we originally thought. Also, the science is not supporting the notion that these painful procedures are all short lived. Work with dairy calves has shown that the dehorning procedure causes behavioural and physiological indicators of pain to persist up to 24 h, long beyond the time frame that local anesthetics can help. Faulkner and Weary (2000) have suggested that producers consider using not just a local anesthetic during dehorning, but recommend giving the calf a long acting non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug such as ketoprofen to diminish painful side effects. In beef cattle the welfare friendly method of dehorning would be to use genetics (Stookey and Goonewardene, 1996).

Chronic pain

In chickens, there is now good morphological, neurophysiological and behavioural evidence that beak trimming leads to both acute and chronic pain (Duncan, 1993). We know that the beak is a highly sensitive and an innervated appendage. Following beak trimming chickens alter their eating habits and restrict their feed intake, indicative of chronic pain. In addition, following beak trimming the blunt end of the beak has been shown to develop neuromas, bundles of nerves that are known to spontaneously fire and result in chronic pain. Tail docking in swine to reduce cannibalism has also been shown to result in the development of neuromas (Glatz, 1998), while neuromas in tail docked dairy cows have been suspected (Barnett et al., 1999). Neuromas that develop in human patients as a result of amputation are responsible for phantom limb pain. Could tail docking cause chronic pain in the stump of the tail? While neuromas generally indicate the presence of persistent pain, it was not known whether the neuromas observed in pig tails were from nerves associated with sensation of pain, or in fact associated with motor functions (tail movement).

In truth we do not know how to prevent cannibalism in chickens without beak trimming nor tail biting in pigs without resorting to tail docking, despite the fact that beak trimming and tail docking are not always 100% effective. The underlying causes of the vice are allusive. Factors that have been identified as contributing to the problem are overcrowding, increased competition for feed and water, adverse environmental features such as high levels of noxious gas, noise, humidity and temperature. Birds kept in free run systems have been especially prone to cannibalism. The incidence of tail biting has also been reported in pigs kept outdoor, again suggesting that the problem is more complicated than we think. Attempts to recreate and study the phenomenon have been problematic. In addition, there may be a genetic predisposition for tail biting and feather pecking. If this is true, it may prove to be a valuable key if it can be controlled via genetic selection. In the end we need more research on the problem of tail biting and feather pecking if we are to understand it and prevent it.

pg 247

What constitutes good welfare?

Professor John Webster (1993) stated, "An excellent test of animal welfare is to discover whether the owner can display his animals with pride to any fair-minded observer." In other words, even without a great deal of training or scientific measurements most people can assess whether animals are clean, healthy and content in a comfortable environment. Animals that are unhealthy, hungry, dirty, overcrowded, stressed and uncomfortable will show visible signs of their distress. It is a simple approach to defining animal welfare, but one that producers and the public would intuitively understand.

Another way to define welfare would be in terms of acceptable or unacceptable levels of production. One common sentiment often expressed by producers in defense of intensive production systems is the statement that welfare must be good because our production is so high. Without good welfare production would drop. Is this a true statement? Is it possible for welfare to be compromised and still have high productivity and efficiency? In the poultry industry, laying hens have been shown to have a high level of production at around 72 sq. in. of cage space. Below that space, the production per bird is reduced, suggesting that welfare of the bird below 72 sq. in. may be compromised. However, the greatest economic return and profitability is realized if birds are kept at 48 - 54 sq. in. per bird. Therefore the economics of the operation may actually favor compromising bird welfare. In such a situation producers keeping birds below 72 sq. in. can not claim the welfare of the birds is optimum, but they can claim the highest economic returns. In such a situation producers have stepped onto an economic treadmill that drives their decisions, but may be compromising welfare.

Could a similar scenario be unfolding within the swine industry? In an experiment by Brumm et al. (1996) the performance of barrows grown to 136 kg was maximized with .84 to 1.0 sq. meters of floor space per pig. Below .84 sq. meters of floor space/pig, performance was significantly reduced. Using the producers definition of welfare "that good performance equals good welfare" then we may be compromising welfare for pigs kept below .84 sq. meters per pig. However, like the poultry example we may experience improved economic efficiencies by crowding pigs. Powell and Brumm (1992) suggest that additional crowding over that previously recommended for optimum pig performance may be warranted economically. Producers that survive in the swine industry are likely on an economic treadmill that dictates their choices, while it potentially compromises animal welfare.

pg 248

Setting livestock standards and eliminating cruelty

Should livestock standards and guidelines be set by economic forces? Stricklin (2000) wrote, "There are certain aspects of animals and the environment that should not be compromised regardless of the type and amount of benefit that might accrue to humans from such exploitation." Every industry is bound by some limits, based on moral and ethical views, that can not be breached without loss of society's approval. What are those limits for the livestock industry? In the end some type of welfare standards are inevitable in regards to slaughter, transportation and production. Already we have good regulations that cover slaughter and transportation. In regards to cruelty there must be zero tolerance and cases of abuse must be considered criminal offenses. Unfortunately, cases of abuse do occur and inevitably paint a brush over an entire industry, especially when exposed by extremist groups.

A case in North Carolina in Dec. of 1998 that resulted in criminal charges was portrayed on the PETA web site as an example of common swine production practices. It was a terrible case of abuse and cruelty, but in no way does it reflect the common practices on swine farms. However, extremists groups use such headlines as a vehicle for the delivery of other items on their agenda. Anyone reading about the cruelty case on PETA's web site will also be informed that, "Abuses like these are routine on today's factory farms, where pigs are packed together in such small spaces that they are unable to even turn around. They are fed hormones and antibiotics to keep disease down and profits up. Their tails are chopped off, their teeth are removed with pliers, and male pigs are castrated-all without anesthesia." We know that abuse and cruelty cases are uncommon, but at the same time we, the industry, must have practices in places and be constantly vigilant against abuse. It should not be the undercover operations by PETA that brings charges against the industry. It should be the swine industry charging its own members if they are involved in cruelty and abuse. It should be the slaughter plants and the swine industry that condemns the TV Survivor episode where a pig was inhumanely killed for entertainment and ratings. Surely the swine industry and slaughter plants are also interested in humane slaughter. Why should PETA look like the only organization that considers inhumane slaughter a problem? Should PETA look like the only champion of animal welfare? We are letting other groups do some of our work and then we complain when they go too far!

Cases of abuse are obvious targets for opponents of livestock production. However, it is not only PETA and animal rights organizations that are talking about cases of abuse. On July 09, 2001 Appropriations Committee Chair, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat- West Virginia) an influential member of the U.S. Senate took the floor and spoke about animal cruelty. He was announcing an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations bill, a $3 million increase in funding for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and Humane Slaughter Act. Following are excerpts from that speech.

Mr. BYRD. "Mr. President, ….
Our inhumane treatment of livestock is becoming widespread and more and more barbaric. Six-hundred-pound hogs--they were pigs at one time--raised in 2-foot-wide metal cages called gestation crates, in which the poor beasts are unable to turn around or lie down in natural positions, and this way they live for months at a time.

pg 249

On profit-driven factory farms, veal calves are confined to dark wooden crates so small that they are prevented from lying down or scratching themselves. These creatures feel; they know pain. They suffer pain just as we humans suffer pain. Egg-laying hens are confined to battery cages. Unable to spread their wings, they are reduced to nothing more than an egg-laying machine.

Last April, the Washington Post detailed the inhumane treatment of livestock in our Nation's slaughterhouses. A 23-year-old Federal law requires that cattle and hogs to be slaughtered must first be stunned, thereby rendered insensitive to pain, but mounting evidence indicates that this is not always being done, that these animals are sometimes cut, skinned, and scalded while still able to feel pain.

A Texas beef company, with 22 citations for cruelty to animals, was found chopping the hooves off live cattle. In another Texas plant with about two dozen violations, Federal officials found nine live cattle dangling from an overhead chain. Secret videos from an Iowa pork plant show hogs squealing and kicking as they are being lowered into the boiling water that will soften their hides, soften the bristles on the hogs and make them easier to skin.

I used to kill hogs. I used to help lower them into the barrels of scalding water, so that the bristles could be removed easily. But those hogs were dead when we lowered them into the barrels.

The law clearly requires that these poor creatures be stunned and rendered insensitive to pain before this process begins. Federal law is being ignored. Animal cruelty abounds. It is sickening. It is infuriating. Barbaric treatment of helpless, defenseless creatures must not be tolerated even if these animals are being raised for food--and even more so, more so. Such insensitivity is insidious and can spread and is dangerous. Life must be respected and dealt with humanely in a civilized society.

So for this reason I have added language in the supplemental appropriations bill that directs the Secretary of Agriculture to report on cases of inhumane animal treatment in regard to livestock production, and to document the response of USDA regulatory agencies.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies have the authority and the capability to take action to reduce the disgusting cruelty about which I have spoken.

pg 250

Oh, these are animals, yes. But they, too, feel pain. These agencies can do a better job, and with this provision they will know that the U.S. Congress expects them to do better in their inspections, to do better in their enforcement of the law, and in their research for new, humane technologies. Additionally, those who perpetuate such barbaric practices will be put on notice that they are being watched.

I realize that this provision will not stop all the animal life in the United States from being mistreated. It will not even stop all beef, cattle, hogs and other livestock from being tortured. But it can serve as an important step."

In the 21st century our livestock operations must have a zero tolerance policy against abuse and cruelty and we must have steps in place to insure that policy is followed. The necessary steps needed to prevent cruelty and abuse include:
1) A zero tolerance mind set by producers and livestock managers against cruelty and abuse.
2) A staff that understands that cruelty and abuse will not be tolerated.
3) A well written set of standard operating procedures that describe in detail the methods for euthanizing animals, the treatment for sick and injured animals, guidelines for loading, handling and restraining animals, etc.
4) Must have a hiring and firing policy and reputation that weeds out bad actors.

Desensitized industries

Grandin (2001) believes that rough handling and excessive use of stock prods in slaughter plants is not because people are intentionally cruel, but because they have become desensitized to the job they are doing and its impact on the animals. It is possible that as our production systems have evolved the livestock and poultry industries have become desensitized to the impact our practices and systems have on our animals? To an objective outsider (or the consumer) it would appear that some practices and some systems of production have stepped over the line of what is acceptable husbandry. Force moulting of laying hens through food restriction may be an example where a desensitized industry has rationalized a cruel practice for economic gain. While force moulting is not a common management tool in Canada, in the United States McDonalds and Burger King are requiring their suppliers to discontinue the practice. Ian Duncan (2000), a noted poultry and welfare scientists, when asked to supply a written opinion to Deputy Attorney General Gregory Gonot of California, reasoned (with scientific evidence) that to engage in "forced molting" in which food is withheld from chickens for 5 to 14 days in order to manipulate the hormones, would be considered a violation under California's animal cruelty laws. The poultry industry, by never setting self imposed limits, today finds itself engaged in an activity that at the very least offends its largest consumers (fast food chains) and at worst violates animal cruelty laws in the State of California! I believe the practice of force moulting by withholding feed has only a limited time within the industry before consumers will put a stop to it permanently. I also believe that keeping hens in battery cages at 48 sq. in per bird is another practice that will soon disappear because of consumer pressure (i.e. fast food chains) and because scientific evidence suggests the welfare of the bird is compromised at low space allowances.

pg 251

Each livestock industry has some welfare issues that it must face. Lameness and downer cows within the dairy industry represent welfare issues that must be corrected in a manner that satisfies the social consensus. On one side of the coin (the producer's side) it may seem prudent to try to salvage injured or weak animals and not be wasteful, but the tide has shifted and society would say the greater sin would be to subject animals to prolonged pain and suffering. Today's consumers equate downed animals with cruelty and any livestock industry that believes it can transport and salvage weak and injured animals and maintain public support is mistaken.

The swine industry also faces considerable pressure in regards to gestation stalls. It is inevitable that the concerns in the UK and Europe over gestation crates will arrive in the US and Canada. Some organizations, such as the CIWF (Compassion in World Farming) that took an active role in the banning of sow stalls in the UK have set their sights on the US swine industry. Their material proudly boast that they will march across the US, state by state, if they have to, in order to ban sow stalls.

It some ways it seems ironic that gestation stalls should be attacked on welfare grounds when crates offer some obvious welfare advantages in reducing aggression and insuring individual feed intake. However, several scientific studies point out that the lack of exercise does extract a measurable cost from the sows in gestation stalls. Sows in crates have reduced bone strength compared to group housed sows fed the same diet (Marchant and Broom, 1996). It is not clear if the lower bone strength in crated sows is a welfare concern, but the argument could be made that they are at a higher risk of injury and bone breakage because of the weaker condition. In addition, the length of parturition time from start until finish and the birth interval between piglets is shorter in sows that have received daily exercise compared to sows kept in gestation stalls (Ferket and Hacker, 1988). Theoretically, you could expect and increase in stillbirths as the birth interval between piglets increases.

The expression of stereotypic behaviour by sows in gestating stalls is also used as evidence by opponents that gestating stalls compromise animal welfare. Stereotypies are behaviours that are a repeated series of movements with little variation that have no obvious or apparent function. Stereotypies are common among caged and confined animals and are seen in many zoo, farm animal and companion animals species. Stereotypies in sows include bar biting, drinker pressing and sham chewing. While many critics point to the behaviour as indicative of a stressful environment and blame the confinement as the main culprit, evidence suggests that hunger plays a major role in the development and maintenance of the oral stereotypies in swine (Terlouw et al., 1991). While stereotypies are an unwelcome behaviour and something the industry must address, the idea of group housing sows to eliminate stereotypies may not be the final solution. In fact, sows kept in dry lots display stone chewing behaviour, which is the comparative counterpart to bar biting. Also, groups housed sows on straw spend hours rooting through and consuming large quantities of straw. Bar biting, sham chewing, stone chewing and straw eating are all behaviours carried out by hungry sows. Keeping sows hungry for major portions of each day is probably a bigger welfare issue from the sows' perspective than confining them in gestation stalls.

pg 252

In the end some alternative system will replace the gestation stall. I believe their days are numbered. I believe this for several reasons:
1) Some scientific evidence is available that suggests sows' welfare in a gestation stalls is compromised. It is true that sows' welfare may be compromised in other systems too, but currently the pendulum is swinging against confinement.
2) The original justification for the industry's move into gestation crates (i.e. to reduce aggression, regulate individual feed intake, reduce space) are factors that other alternatives may accomplish too. More research and time will tell if the alternatives are as good at meeting the objectives as gestation stalls.
3) Public outcry will only grow against the gestation stall. I see no signs that the public's distaste for gestation crates will diminish over time.
4) The large consumers such as McDonald's, Burger King, etc. have demonstrated that they will play an active role in setting welfare standards at the slaughter plant. Eventually they will reach all the way back to the farm and support only those suppliers that meet their welfare standards.

How to add animal welfare to an operation and stay economically solvent.

The commercial farms that dominate today's livestock industry and sell on the open market are not rewarded for maintaining the highest welfare standards on the farm. If the packing plants will not reward producers for maintaining high welfare standards, then who will set the welfare standards, at what level and who will pay for it?

One option would be that government would set animal welfare standards. The only clear advantage to this approach would be that all producers would be placed on an even playing field; costly, but equal. The disadvantage would be that legislation implies policing in order to keep minimum standards, while it lacks incentives to provide the best welfare. In addition, any legislation that places the producers at an economic disadvantage on the global market would inevitably hurt producers, just as the viability of the UK veal and swine industry has suffered under their animal welfare legislation. Also, the current World Trade Organization has shown no sympathy for countries that have welfare legislation, meaning that trade barriers can not be enacted on welfare grounds or based on a country's social conscience, at least so far (Burgoyne, 1999).

Could producers set their own animal welfare standards? In a sense we have already done so in Canada with the publication of Recommended Codes of Practice. However, currently there is no farm auditing nor guarantee that the Codes are known or followed. Producers are reluctant to police themselves, producers have a tradition of operating on their own without welfare guidelines and producers would have considerable difficulties in meeting a consensus.

Recognizing that our current systems and practices are the result of economic realities it seems promising that the future changes towards improving welfare may come about with the aid of the consumer's pocketbook. Large consumers like McDonald's and Burger King have begun discussing changes that they expect of their suppliers and have indicated some willingness to reward the suppliers and offset the costs. Labeling foods may be another method of offsetting any increased cost of production, provided that the higher price on the store shelf brings some additional monies back to the producer.

pg 253

I would encourage producers to seek ways to increase profits by maintaining the highest welfare standards and by being paid for the value they have added to the product. There are some attempts to capitalize on animal welfare by labeling food. In the UK welfare friendly meat, milk and eggs are sold under a Freedom Food label following strict welfare guidelines developed and monitored by the RSPCA. In 1990 there were 119 producers marketing under the Freedom Food label. In 1999 there were over 4,400 producers marketing under the Freedom Food scheme. A similar venture is taking place among Quebec swine producers marketing under the du Breton logo and a Free Farmed label, monitored by the American Humane Association and sold in the States. It is possible to raise hogs under the highest welfare standards and be paid for the value added product. It takes vision, cooperation and marketing, but it can be done.

A livestock industry can not afford to ignore animal care and animal welfare issues and expect to remain sustainable. Following are my recommendations to address the animal welfare concerns voiced by consumers
1) Develop a proactive approach aimed at educating producers on animal welfare issues.
2) Set uncompromising standards. At some point the line must be drawn that will not be crossed by the entire industry regardless of the profits that can be gained by cheating on animal welfare. Without the line welfare is certain to be compromised.
3) Support research aimed at developing economically viable welfare friendly alternatives.
4) Develop incentives for welfare friendly operations.
5) Work with consumer groups and label products.

For more information you may contact Dr. Joseph M. Stookey through e-mail at joseph.stookey@.usask.ca or by telephone at (306) 966-7154.

For a copy of the Proceedings of the 22nd Western Nutrtion Conference 2001 send request to:

Mr. Grant Wood P.Ag.
Extension Division
University of Saskatchewan
117 Science Place
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7N 5C8
Canada
Telephone: (306) 966-5586
FAX: (306) 966-5567

References

Barnett J. L., G. J. Coleman, P. H. Hemsworth and E. A. Newman. 1999. Tail docking and beliefs about the practice in the Victorian dairy industry. Australian Vet. J., 77:742-747.

Brumm, M. C. and NCR-89 Committee on Management of Swine. 1996. Effect of space allowance on barrow performance to 136 kilograms body weight. J. Anim. Sci. 74:745-749.

Burgoyne, D. 1999. International trade and animal welfare. Cahiers Agri. 8:445-449.

Byrd, Senator Robert. 2001. Cruelty to animals. Speech on the U.S. Senate Floor, July 09, 2001) [Page: S7310] http://www.hsus.org/programs/government/byrd.html

Duncan, I. 2000. Forced Molting Violates California's Animal Cruelty Laws. Letter sent to California Deputy Attorney General Gregory Gonot
http://www.upc-online.org/001113duncan_molt_letter.html

Ferket S. L. and R. R. Hacker. 1988. Effect of forced exercise during gestation on reproductive performance of sows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 65:851-859.

Flecknell, P. A. and V. Molony. 1997. Pain and injury. In: Animal Welfare ed. Appleby and Hughes CAB International. New York, NY. Pp. 63-73.

Faulkner, P. and Weary, D.M. 2000. Reducing pain after dehorning in dairy
calves. J. Dairy Sci. 83: 2037-2041.

Glatz, P. 1998. When's the right time to tail dock? http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au/livestck/pigspoul/pignews/sept98/whensthe.htm

Kohler, I., Y. Moens, A. Busato, J. Blum, and U. Schatzmann. 1998. Inhalation anaesthesia for the castration of piglets: CO2 compared to halothane. J. Vet. Med. 45:625-633.

Marchant, J. N. and D. M. Broom. 1996. Effects of dry sow housing conditions on muscle weight and bone strength. Anim. Sci. Pencaitland. 62 (1)105-113.

Powell, T. A. and M. C. Brumm. 1992. Economics of space allocation for grower-finisher hogs. J. Am. Soc. Farm Mgrs. Rural Appraisers 56:67-72.

Rollin, B. E. 1989. Pain, paradox and value. Bioethics 3:211-226.

Stookey, J. M. and L. A. Goonewardene. 1996. A comparison of production traits and welfare implications between horned and polled beef bulls. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1-5.

Stricklin, W. R. 2001. Personal communications.

Terlouw, E. M. C., A. B. Lawrence and A. W. Illius. 1991. Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Anim. Behav. 42:981-991.

Toppo, G. 2001. Back to School: Schools serving more vegetarian kids, but veggie advocates say schools not getting the job done. Boston Globe, Sept. 1.

Webster, A. J. F. 1993. The challenge of animal welfare. In: World Conference on Animal Production, Edmonton, Alberta. Pp. 513-524.