Last November, voters in Ohio passed a ballot initiative amending the state Constitution to create, for the first time, a Livestock Care Standards Board. The Board is to consist of 13 members, representing a "variety" of interests, as follows.
- The Director of Agriculture (Chairperson)
- One person representing family farmers
- One person knowledgeable about food safety
- Two members representing statewide organizations that represent farmers (essentially, Farm Bureau members)
- One licensed veterinarian
- The State Veterinarian
- Dean of the Agriculture Department at a college or university
- Two representatives of consumers
- One representative from a county humane society
- One family farmer appointed by the Speaker of the House, and
- One family farmer appointed by the President of the Senate
A couple of things to note right off the bat. First, neither the bill nor the enacting legislation define 'family farmer.' Given this ambiguity, the Board could potentially define it broadly to include farms technically owned by a family (i.e. Smith Family Farms) that nonetheless employ several hundred workers and raise hundreds to thousands of animals; hardly a family farm in the common understanding of the term. Alternatively, it may choose to simply operate without defining the term, thus leaving it to a future legal challenge and court interpretation, though it is unclear who would have standing to bring that kind of action.
Second, Ohio is an Ag state. This means that agricultural interests dominate state and local politics, the same as energy does is West Virginia and ranching interests in Montana. Potentially then, there are 12 out of the 13 seats on the Board that can be filled with Ag interests. The one that is least likely to be an Ag seat is the humane society representative. With that kind of majority, there is no reason not to expect that the Board will simply perpetuate the current policies in place regarding "livestock care."
Let's be clear, the current policies are not pretty. Ohio is a significant meat and dairy producing state in the country, with over 2.5 million animals in agriculture in the state. It is the 9th largest pork producing state in the country. Currently, standard industry practice (farming is "industrial" in nearly every sense of the word), includes the use of gestation/farrowing crates for pigs, battery cages for hens, and nearly constant milking for cows. Gestation crates are holding devices that restrict a sow's ability to move once impregnated, through gestation, and into birth. Farrowing crates, which follow, are also holding devices that restrict a sow's ability to move so that her piglets can constantly suckle her for milk. Battery cages are also holding pens for laying hens that are used on industrial farms across the state and country. They are incredibly confining for the hens, and are generally stacked 6-8 high, and the hens never leave the cages. Lastly, dairy cows are milked constantly and are artificially inseminated several times a year. See my previous post for some of the more egregious consequences of industrial dairies.
Fortunately, in the wake of Ohio's push to maintain the status quo organizations are gathering signatures for an initiative on this year's ballot that would at least limit the Livestock Care Board's seemingly unfettered discretion a little by creating minimum standards of care. These include:
- prohibiting any tethering device or confinement that wouldn't allow a veal calf, pregnant sow, or egg-laying hen to stand up, lie down, turn around freely and stretch its limbs,
- requiring "humane" slaughter (though this is ostensibly already embodied in the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, a federal law),
- prohibiting strangulation as a form of euthanasia (see my post: Death on a Factory Farm), and
- prohibiting the transfer/sale of downer cows for human food supply.
Last time, Ohioans got it wrong. Hopefully this time, they won't.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Abuse at NY Dairy
Earlier this month, Mercy for Animals released a video (WARNING: disturbing footage) from an undercover investigation into the treatment of animals at New York state's largest dairy farm, Willet Dairy. The video is horrific and grotesque, from the conditions in which the cows live, to the manner in which they are treated. Some of the examples of abuse include:
- calves having their horns removed without anesthesia, where the worker places his fingers in the calf's eye to keep it still as the worker burns the calf's horns off,
- cows with severe wounds including prolapsed uteruses, untreated infections, swollen joints, all covered in manure,
- cows are shocked with metal prods as they are funneled into a truck from the pen, or vice versa, and
- cows have the ends of their tails "docked" without anesthesia.
This is a partial list of the actions that are, according to the investigator, commonplace at the dairy. The last of the abuses mentioned above, known as "tail docking," is a practice common at dairies across the country. Recently in California, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed a bill into law banning the practice of "tail docking." California Penal Code §597n, already banning the practice of docking horse's tails, was amended to include cattle.
Following in California's footsteps, and on the heels of the recently released MFA video, Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal of New York Assembly District 67 proposed a similar bill banning the practice of tail docking.
The practice of tail docking is justified by proponents as necessary to preserve cleanliness of the cow's udder, higher quality milk production, and worker health. Though, according to several scientific, peer-reviewed journal articles (this is one of them), these justifications are unfounded. Still, approximately half of the 9 million cows raised for milk in the United States have their tails docked, according to a 2001 USDA survey. Approximately 1.2 million of those cows are raised in some 2152 California dairies, the nation's largest dairy producing state.
One of the reasons the welfare of cows has deteriorated is the dramatic consolidation of the dairy industry in the last 30 years. Small dairy farms (<30 cows), while representing nearly 30% of all producers in the country, account for a mere 1% of milk produced. In fact, the number of farms with less than 200 cows decreased by 30% in 6 years between 2000 and 2006. At the same time, the number of farms raising 2000+ cows doubled! In California, dairies with 500+ cows accounted for 88% of all dairy production in the state. For more statistics of the changes in the dairy industry, see the 2006 USDA study, here.
The treatment of animals raised in agriculture is an issue that is consciously and effectively hidden from the public. Given this latest video, with good reason. Nearly 10 billion animals are raised and slaughtered each year in the United States from human consumption. That is to say: we raise and kill for food the equivalent of almost one and a half times all human life on this planet, each year. Most of these animals are raised and/or slaughtered on large farms, run by major publicly traded corporations that treat these animals as commodities, reaching continuously to reach the highest efficiencies and economies of scale. As a result, the welfare of the animals is discarded in favor of lowering the bottom line further and further. The harsh eventuality of this industrialization of agriculture is now beginning to show itself, and stories like this one about Willet Dairy must compel us to react.
The silver lining here is the power that consumers hold in their pocket books. By choosing not to support large dairies where the majority of these animals are raised (and hence, abused), you will be taking a small step in the right direction. One small step may not be much, but two, three, four, 50, 100, 500, 1000, and more, eventually add up. Of course, choosing not to support dairies altogether would be a larger step, though not everyone is capable of doing that, including myself (for the time being). Thus, buying organic, rBGH-free milk, raised on small, local farms is a modest, yet valuable vote you can cast against cruelty to animals in agriculture.
- calves having their horns removed without anesthesia, where the worker places his fingers in the calf's eye to keep it still as the worker burns the calf's horns off,
- cows with severe wounds including prolapsed uteruses, untreated infections, swollen joints, all covered in manure,
- cows are shocked with metal prods as they are funneled into a truck from the pen, or vice versa, and
- cows have the ends of their tails "docked" without anesthesia.
This is a partial list of the actions that are, according to the investigator, commonplace at the dairy. The last of the abuses mentioned above, known as "tail docking," is a practice common at dairies across the country. Recently in California, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed a bill into law banning the practice of "tail docking." California Penal Code §597n, already banning the practice of docking horse's tails, was amended to include cattle.
Following in California's footsteps, and on the heels of the recently released MFA video, Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal of New York Assembly District 67 proposed a similar bill banning the practice of tail docking.
The practice of tail docking is justified by proponents as necessary to preserve cleanliness of the cow's udder, higher quality milk production, and worker health. Though, according to several scientific, peer-reviewed journal articles (this is one of them), these justifications are unfounded. Still, approximately half of the 9 million cows raised for milk in the United States have their tails docked, according to a 2001 USDA survey. Approximately 1.2 million of those cows are raised in some 2152 California dairies, the nation's largest dairy producing state.
One of the reasons the welfare of cows has deteriorated is the dramatic consolidation of the dairy industry in the last 30 years. Small dairy farms (<30 cows), while representing nearly 30% of all producers in the country, account for a mere 1% of milk produced. In fact, the number of farms with less than 200 cows decreased by 30% in 6 years between 2000 and 2006. At the same time, the number of farms raising 2000+ cows doubled! In California, dairies with 500+ cows accounted for 88% of all dairy production in the state. For more statistics of the changes in the dairy industry, see the 2006 USDA study, here.
The treatment of animals raised in agriculture is an issue that is consciously and effectively hidden from the public. Given this latest video, with good reason. Nearly 10 billion animals are raised and slaughtered each year in the United States from human consumption. That is to say: we raise and kill for food the equivalent of almost one and a half times all human life on this planet, each year. Most of these animals are raised and/or slaughtered on large farms, run by major publicly traded corporations that treat these animals as commodities, reaching continuously to reach the highest efficiencies and economies of scale. As a result, the welfare of the animals is discarded in favor of lowering the bottom line further and further. The harsh eventuality of this industrialization of agriculture is now beginning to show itself, and stories like this one about Willet Dairy must compel us to react.
The silver lining here is the power that consumers hold in their pocket books. By choosing not to support large dairies where the majority of these animals are raised (and hence, abused), you will be taking a small step in the right direction. One small step may not be much, but two, three, four, 50, 100, 500, 1000, and more, eventually add up. Of course, choosing not to support dairies altogether would be a larger step, though not everyone is capable of doing that, including myself (for the time being). Thus, buying organic, rBGH-free milk, raised on small, local farms is a modest, yet valuable vote you can cast against cruelty to animals in agriculture.
Finding Purpose
This blog has been like a long-distance friendship for me. For the first few months, we keep up with each other just the same as before the distance inserted itself between us. Weekly posts, even daily posts are the norm. The hours of the day soon fill up with ordinary life and I start to feel the distance. I rationalize the uncharacteristic gap between contact as me just being busy. "I'm sure everyone is busy these days, anyway." Then one day, I wake up and realize that 3 silent months have gone by with no notice. That feeling has brought me back to this moment several times, and several times I have begun to write and have not finished.
This time is different. I lost track of what is, to me, the purpose of a blog. It started as a means of communication with family and friends out of necessity. Once that need was gone, I didn't replace that purpose with something else. Now, I have a purpose again.
The future of this blog will be devoted to any and all issues related to non-human animal welfare, animal rights, food, and the impossibly intricate connection between animals, nature, and humans.
keep it fresh...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
