This week marks the submission of my IACUC proposal which has been a much larger endeavor than I had originally supposed. For those of you who don't know, IACUC is an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and every research institution has one of these committees. The main purpose of the committee is to oversee research that deals with animals and ensure the animals' well-being by reviewing the protocols and making sure that the animals will be well cared far, that the research has a practical use in today's society, that animals will not be wasted needlessly in this research and that there isn't some crazy professor doing horrendous things to animals in the name of science.
What the IACUC committee is looking for is to see for starters that the researcher is and will be providing adequate daily care and alleviation of pain and illness for the duration of the project. Even if animals will die at the end of a project there is no justification for failing to provide adequate care to them before then. The IACUC committee is also checking to see if this research is applicable to mankind. How will the research benefit us as humans and what benefits does it have for animals? They also want to know if similar research has been done before. If similar research has been done before, how will this project be different? Science has a checkered past with unnecessary duplication of projects or projects that are duplicated in larger numbers just to find statistical significance so the committee wants to make sure that duplicate projects are limited and the first projects in new areas have statistical value.
All of these criteria have a specific goal of reducing research impact on animals and which focus on the 3 R's of research today: Replacement, Refinement and Reduction. Over time as we as a society have become more concerned about the experiences and plight of animals in research, the 3 R's evolved to have a central significance to responsible animal research. Each one has a specific focus and all 3 provide a cohesive body of work with which to judge the value of a research project and its impact on animal well-being. Ultimately we use the 3 R's to justify a project and its use of animals in combination with the project's assumed ultimate benefit to both animals and humans globally. Here's my understanding of the 3 R's in my own life and my obligation during research.
Replacement references the substitution of "lesser" animals, animal models or other laboratory analysis for life animals wherever possible. Refinement refers to procedures and using the best and least invasive procedures for data collection. Reduction is more of a statistical comment. It can refer to not repeating experiments needlessly as well as designing experiments in a way to use as few animals as possible so as to eliminate needless inclusion of animals in an experiment. This also helps the researchers themselves in many cases as it helps to reduce the budget for a project. Every animal fed and cared for through a project adds a cost to the project.
Animal research has provided many great benefits to humans over time, but it has also had great benefit for the animals studied as we gain a better understanding of them and can improve the care we provide to them. Ending animal research in today's society would be unreasonable and uncaring towards human patients who suffer worldwide today and even though this is something advocated by animal rights groups, we owe it to our fellow human beings to continue animal research to search for the cures to diseases from which they suffer. While I advocate caution among research projects towards the care of animals, the truth of the matter is that animal research benefits people everywhere in concerns such as increasing human food production, curing diseases, better understanding of biology and a greater appreciation to the diversity around us and I support this with all I am. As an animal scientist I am committed to providing appropriate care to the animals in my project and I am hopeful that my project can have a positive impact on our understanding of animal behavior and how we can provide good care to food producing animals while not sacrificing our ability to feed so many people with such few resources.
Showing posts with label PETA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PETA. Show all posts
Friday, May 27, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
About Freaking Time
I know this post is nothing but timely, seeing as how this news sat in my inbox for the last two weeks, but that's just a sign that I'm finally doing work around the office and at home. But this piece of news was still worth the sharing, so I thought I'd put it up here for those who haven't heard.
Iowa now joins the charge in prosecuting the activists responsible for infiltrating farms under false names or employment intentions and then staging videos of animal abuse in efforts to defame farmers nationwide. This bill is years late, but props to Representative Sweeney for bringing this issue to legislative action. It's a shame that we have to legislate respect and honesty, but animal rights activists have no limit to their moral depravity as they pursue fame and their personal agenda. Hopefully, Iowa is next in a long line of states proposing this type of legislative action against the true animal abusers behind most of the videos. Ohio sure could've used this in the Conklin case with Mercy for Animals.
... As a side note, a day later, it's funny to read Gene Baur's blog on this issue, complaining about being prosecuted for telling the truth. If there was truth to what he told, it wouldn't be in agreement with HSUS and PETA.
Iowa now joins the charge in prosecuting the activists responsible for infiltrating farms under false names or employment intentions and then staging videos of animal abuse in efforts to defame farmers nationwide. This bill is years late, but props to Representative Sweeney for bringing this issue to legislative action. It's a shame that we have to legislate respect and honesty, but animal rights activists have no limit to their moral depravity as they pursue fame and their personal agenda. Hopefully, Iowa is next in a long line of states proposing this type of legislative action against the true animal abusers behind most of the videos. Ohio sure could've used this in the Conklin case with Mercy for Animals.
... As a side note, a day later, it's funny to read Gene Baur's blog on this issue, complaining about being prosecuted for telling the truth. If there was truth to what he told, it wouldn't be in agreement with HSUS and PETA.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Mass Media...
... is the sole difference between agricultural corporations/commodity groups and the HSUS. Of course, many people have realized this already as concerned "agvocacy" groups and individuals scramble to educate people on the appropriate and effective use of social media outlets to spread the truth about animal care on America's farms today. And don't get me wrong, this is very important and will lead to better communication on the part of farmers in the future, but this doesn't solve the problem of now. It doesn't help get out the word to counter the lies which spread like weeds on MiracleGro.
Back in the winter (and yes, it's March and 50F outside so I can say that today), Feedstuffs ran a series of articles written by a reporter who got on farm after the chicken footage was released. His articles served as a powerful expose to the creative artwork that went into fabricating the "footage" used to accuse the farm of animal neglect and abuse. Like so many other videos that HSUS, PETA and Mercy for Animals are using to build up their tsunami of uninformed, but extremely concerned consumers, the release turned out to be framed. And after the media hype about the video release had passed and it was found to be posed, who was left to report the truth?
One reporter, as previously mentioned, did a real good job of covering facts and telling the truth and for that he ought to be commended. The same is true for the Smithfield video release back in December, and if you have any interest in reading facts about what happened, follow the link to read some true reporting. The unfortunate thing is that in the end, how far will this article really get? The media has lost the thread on this story long ago. Heck, look how long Egypt stayed on the news and how quickly they trailed off again, eclipsed by some new and unknown TV airtime and advertisement opportunity. Read this if you care about the truth, and then share it. If you want more people to read and to know, you'll have to share it yourself, face-to-face, or wallpost-to-wallpost, or however word gets passed along these days.
(credit to cartoonstock.com for the picture)
Back in the winter (and yes, it's March and 50F outside so I can say that today), Feedstuffs ran a series of articles written by a reporter who got on farm after the chicken footage was released. His articles served as a powerful expose to the creative artwork that went into fabricating the "footage" used to accuse the farm of animal neglect and abuse. Like so many other videos that HSUS, PETA and Mercy for Animals are using to build up their tsunami of uninformed, but extremely concerned consumers, the release turned out to be framed. And after the media hype about the video release had passed and it was found to be posed, who was left to report the truth?
One reporter, as previously mentioned, did a real good job of covering facts and telling the truth and for that he ought to be commended. The same is true for the Smithfield video release back in December, and if you have any interest in reading facts about what happened, follow the link to read some true reporting. The unfortunate thing is that in the end, how far will this article really get? The media has lost the thread on this story long ago. Heck, look how long Egypt stayed on the news and how quickly they trailed off again, eclipsed by some new and unknown TV airtime and advertisement opportunity. Read this if you care about the truth, and then share it. If you want more people to read and to know, you'll have to share it yourself, face-to-face, or wallpost-to-wallpost, or however word gets passed along these days.
(credit to cartoonstock.com for the picture)
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Targeting Children (duplicate post)
I think violence is so much worse when the intended targets are children. It's been decades now and Ireland/N. Ireland still can't get over the war which never really ended. But who honestly thought it was cool to rig a kid's bike with a bomb? Horrible.
And if you think about the fact that the booby-trapped bike would have only gone off in the case that a kid were to use it, don't you have to wonder if it would've damaged or killed anything but the kid? Worse than a case of using a bomb on a kid to kill your enemies, this was direct targeting of the kid and only the kid.
Of course, isn't targeting children the same thing that any extremist crazy group does? Compare this to Peta who handed out coloring books to children telling them that their parents were murderers and including graphic images for the kids to color of their parents killing animals and eating them. No surprise that there was a huge outcry against the coloring books, but not as huge an outcry as there should've been because Peta still legally exists.
Do agriculturalists target children? Yes, of course, but not in the same way. We encourage them to explore the farm life, to eat healthy which is best done with an animal protein diet and to embrace the quality of life they have been given the opportunity to live in this country.
Compare this to the crazies with ALF and their efforts to target children of employees at Huntington. They unabashedly claimed in their press releases that they target kids instead of the parents because this is what works. The company is too strong, and the adults better equipped to handle the stress of aggression and stalking than the children.
The next time you see a Peta ad with a naked girl telling you to stop eating meat... are you going to listen?
And if you think about the fact that the booby-trapped bike would have only gone off in the case that a kid were to use it, don't you have to wonder if it would've damaged or killed anything but the kid? Worse than a case of using a bomb on a kid to kill your enemies, this was direct targeting of the kid and only the kid.
Of course, isn't targeting children the same thing that any extremist crazy group does? Compare this to Peta who handed out coloring books to children telling them that their parents were murderers and including graphic images for the kids to color of their parents killing animals and eating them. No surprise that there was a huge outcry against the coloring books, but not as huge an outcry as there should've been because Peta still legally exists.
Do agriculturalists target children? Yes, of course, but not in the same way. We encourage them to explore the farm life, to eat healthy which is best done with an animal protein diet and to embrace the quality of life they have been given the opportunity to live in this country.
Compare this to the crazies with ALF and their efforts to target children of employees at Huntington. They unabashedly claimed in their press releases that they target kids instead of the parents because this is what works. The company is too strong, and the adults better equipped to handle the stress of aggression and stalking than the children.
The next time you see a Peta ad with a naked girl telling you to stop eating meat... are you going to listen?
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Mike Rowe on castration
Nothing more needs said other than I think this is a great talk by Mike Rowe. Listen to it, and think about how it applies to the misconceptions that we have about what is really better for the animals. And who better to know what's good for animals than the ones who take care of them 365 days a year.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
On it goes...
Barilla pasta became the first big pasta-maker to join the cage-free egg movement. Whether or not they were pressured into it or bought out by HSUS, we'll probably never know. But what I do know is that they represent just one in a huge wave of propaganda conquests by HSUS as they buy, force or lie their way into the forefront of animal rights idiocracy. I think it's great that Barilla cares so much about the welfare of chickens, but maybe before they force more of the market production to convert to cage-free production, they might've wanted to ask whether or not cage-free is really a better system for the bird. For further reading on the matter, check out this OSU compilation on the welfare of birds in both systems. You might just be surprised.
While we're at the old grind of trying to spread facts to the few who care to elevate about media-hyped fiction, try out this sow housing fact sheet released by the USDA and ARS. I found it to be a more honest and unbiased evaluation of the current situation and research. In class today, we discussed the highly controversial issues surrounding the care and euthanasia of pigs. I understand the concern with animal welfare. As long as there are people beating animals, we have not done enough. But what frustrates me is the momentum from video releases which are used to push for irrational methods of caring for animals, such as untested swine housing, lack of castration, castration with anesthetics which are more detrimental to the piglet than the surgery, and utopic descriptions of how a pig should be allowed to act to exhibit "normal" behavior. For those of you who haven't seen pigs, don't watch their normal behavior - it will make a bad impression (ever seen Old Yeller?).
Finally, I have just two topics that border gross for me. First is the suspected live burial of pigs during the spread of foot and mouth disease in Korea. Foot and mouth disease is a horrible disease which spreads much faster than the vaccine would be able to work. While Compassion advocates the vaccine, you need to understand that the animals in question were obviously already afflicted with the disease. They should obviously have been euthanized prior to burial but they were not going to be saved one way or another.
And then there's the Dutch guy who thinks we should eat bugs. What do animal rights activists think about this? What a tasty alternative to bacon, eh?
While we're at the old grind of trying to spread facts to the few who care to elevate about media-hyped fiction, try out this sow housing fact sheet released by the USDA and ARS. I found it to be a more honest and unbiased evaluation of the current situation and research. In class today, we discussed the highly controversial issues surrounding the care and euthanasia of pigs. I understand the concern with animal welfare. As long as there are people beating animals, we have not done enough. But what frustrates me is the momentum from video releases which are used to push for irrational methods of caring for animals, such as untested swine housing, lack of castration, castration with anesthetics which are more detrimental to the piglet than the surgery, and utopic descriptions of how a pig should be allowed to act to exhibit "normal" behavior. For those of you who haven't seen pigs, don't watch their normal behavior - it will make a bad impression (ever seen Old Yeller?).
Finally, I have just two topics that border gross for me. First is the suspected live burial of pigs during the spread of foot and mouth disease in Korea. Foot and mouth disease is a horrible disease which spreads much faster than the vaccine would be able to work. While Compassion advocates the vaccine, you need to understand that the animals in question were obviously already afflicted with the disease. They should obviously have been euthanized prior to burial but they were not going to be saved one way or another.
And then there's the Dutch guy who thinks we should eat bugs. What do animal rights activists think about this? What a tasty alternative to bacon, eh?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
My response to "Anonymous"
I was struggling with what to blog about, between ADSA news and new ARS research, but "Anonymous" has provided me with a far more exciting topic. Thank him/her later, but for now please read his/her comments under my September 8th blog and then read my response. As always, I accept comments and am willing to entertain discussion, but fellow readers please don't make me do all the work. You too can talk about what you think and how you want to respond to comments such as these. You'll also probably want to excuse a few typos, I'll try to edit them out as I find them.
"Anonymous, per your comments on Sept. 8th (this didn't fit into the box and you didn't provide me an email address or identity to respond to)
"It is not the actual ideas listed in this bill which are repulsive. Rather, it is the fact that this kind of legislated welfare hasn't been shown to benefit either farmers or animals yet. The wording in this bill is shockingly similar to that of some wordings in Prop 2 of California. No surprise, really, since the sponsoring Rep. is from California, but the true surprise comes in the fact that what happens when legislation similar to this is passed is that there is no true progress made on behalf of animal welfare. Of course, this doesn't matter when the agents behind this bill are only interested in the elimination of global animal product consumption and not in the well-being of actual animals. However, for the rest of us who are interested in consuming the wholesome, nutritious protein products offered by livestock, the bill represents many other problems.
"Bills that merely state the limitations on confinements operations as subjective measurements such as "free to turn around" or "able to stretch limbs" eventually accomplish just what they specify. Nothing. The same few "bad producers" out there who taint the reputation of thousands of other good farmers every day are the ones who will push to the limits such pathetic laws as ones suggesting that an animal be able to turn around. Compared to other legitimate documents being considered among Congressmen and Congresswomen, well, who're we kidding? Why would we compare them in the first place. Sure, these animals can be allowed to turn around, but wouldn't you rather create a situation in which the animal was more COMFORTABLE? Research shows, for example, that pigs actually prefer the seclusion of tight pens in some instances because they don't want to be bothered by other pigs in their pen or group. Will forcing the ability to turn around solve the problem of hormonal gestating sows and gilts (female pigs) that exhibit more cruelty to each other than humans have ever shown them? Will the use of larger cages (or even no cages) protect the hens from the truth about "pecking orders" which proponents of cage-free systems continue to ignore and conveniently forget to mention at their pep rallies? The answer is rhetorical, but for anyone who missed it, NO.
"I'm not saying that the current conditions are perfect. Otherwise, I wouldn't be involved in research from which we hope to gain a better understanding of how to raise livestock in a manner which better suits their needs as well as ours. Nothing is perfect, otherwise there would eventually be no purpose for research, and we would not make progress in the world. Yet I do like to consume protein products and they are a healthy addition to my diet because I consume them in correct serving proportions. So this puts me into a position where I must justify my feelings about caring for animals with my need for consumption.
"If you look at the past compared with the present, you can see that we have made leaps and bounds of progress in the way of animal health and husbandry. These cages and confinement were not spurned into existence by a greedy desire for profit as you suggest, but rather a desire for reduced death and morbidity loss. I challenge you to name me one farmer who likes to lose animals to injury and disease. It's not pretty, nor fun, nor is it specific to any type of livestock system. Through greater control on the growing environments of the animals in a system, we have gained production and profit through doing what farmers have always done best - caring for animals and helping them to grow and produce, which leads to more people being fed around the globe. This is the same goal that farmers across America share today. Every day, people go hungry and the increased production offers a way of providing protein products to many under-privileged households that would otherwise not be able to afford the nutrition they are provided. Because animals consume feeds not edible to humans, they are a great way to continue producing protein products for future generations as we reach increased food consumption needs.
"With this in mind, I think it is imperative to consider what this bill will practically accomplish and what better goals might be set instead. With a bill expanding the size of cages to allow for freer movement, the uneducated individual would naturally assume that the animals would be happier, healthier and thus the individual would feel less guilt in consuming an animal that has led a better life. Despite this imagery which has been distributed in mass mailings and pamphlets worldwide, this is not necessarily the case. Chickens in larger cages are certainly not happier nor healthier after being pecked to death by their neighbors. Nor are calves' stress levels going to be reduced after being removed from the safety from weather and disease transmission within their individual hutches or tie-outs during a critical stage of their life (Interestingly enough, per your comment about veal calves, they're going to all be group-housed by 2017 anyhow, because we're going to make that work). What seems like cruelty, tight quarters or seclusion was almost always begun originally for the benefit of the animals. Now with new ideas about how to best care for animals, research on this issue is inconclusive and highly conditional still.
"Are there a few bad egg producers in the clutch that require legislation to force them to properly care for their animals? No, because those bad eggs still won't do anything differently after the legislation except clean up their act for a few audits. It's just like animal rights protesters. Is every single one of them a nude maniac that does their best to force their opinions down peoples' throats between jail terms? Of course not, but they sure do give people a bad name, don't they?
"Therefore, the legislation you touted in your comments will not actually accomplish in all cases the reform that you appear to desire. Instead, this is a perfect example of radical rights group-backed legislation aimed at the eventual removal of a critical source of nutrients from our food system. They come forth with cheap articles praising the new cage-free systems or the larger cage for group-caged layers, but without an actual interest in benefiting animals and despite proof of any success from past legislative initiatives, are you still willing to believe them? I am not, and I am saying that this is a childish way to go about trying to enact change in this country. Further, I am reiterating that national legislation has not proven beneficial to animals in the past (reference the plight of horses now that HSUS got their way with the Horse Slaughter legislation - big names such as Temple Grandin and PETA publicly disagree with this law). Lastly, I am saying that we need to hold off on these mass-legislative movements until we can really honestly say that we have found what's best for the animals, because isn't that what both of us are after in the end? If the animal-rights groups were truly after helping the animals, then they would agree. There are lots of people out researching how to improve the lives of animals on farms, they just need the chance to find the answers before someone goes and ruins the lives of millions of animals by pushing for laws which don't end up helping improve anything. Give research a chance to find the answers before you force failure upon everyone."
"Anonymous, per your comments on Sept. 8th (this didn't fit into the box and you didn't provide me an email address or identity to respond to)
"It is not the actual ideas listed in this bill which are repulsive. Rather, it is the fact that this kind of legislated welfare hasn't been shown to benefit either farmers or animals yet. The wording in this bill is shockingly similar to that of some wordings in Prop 2 of California. No surprise, really, since the sponsoring Rep. is from California, but the true surprise comes in the fact that what happens when legislation similar to this is passed is that there is no true progress made on behalf of animal welfare. Of course, this doesn't matter when the agents behind this bill are only interested in the elimination of global animal product consumption and not in the well-being of actual animals. However, for the rest of us who are interested in consuming the wholesome, nutritious protein products offered by livestock, the bill represents many other problems.
"Bills that merely state the limitations on confinements operations as subjective measurements such as "free to turn around" or "able to stretch limbs" eventually accomplish just what they specify. Nothing. The same few "bad producers" out there who taint the reputation of thousands of other good farmers every day are the ones who will push to the limits such pathetic laws as ones suggesting that an animal be able to turn around. Compared to other legitimate documents being considered among Congressmen and Congresswomen, well, who're we kidding? Why would we compare them in the first place. Sure, these animals can be allowed to turn around, but wouldn't you rather create a situation in which the animal was more COMFORTABLE? Research shows, for example, that pigs actually prefer the seclusion of tight pens in some instances because they don't want to be bothered by other pigs in their pen or group. Will forcing the ability to turn around solve the problem of hormonal gestating sows and gilts (female pigs) that exhibit more cruelty to each other than humans have ever shown them? Will the use of larger cages (or even no cages) protect the hens from the truth about "pecking orders" which proponents of cage-free systems continue to ignore and conveniently forget to mention at their pep rallies? The answer is rhetorical, but for anyone who missed it, NO.
"I'm not saying that the current conditions are perfect. Otherwise, I wouldn't be involved in research from which we hope to gain a better understanding of how to raise livestock in a manner which better suits their needs as well as ours. Nothing is perfect, otherwise there would eventually be no purpose for research, and we would not make progress in the world. Yet I do like to consume protein products and they are a healthy addition to my diet because I consume them in correct serving proportions. So this puts me into a position where I must justify my feelings about caring for animals with my need for consumption.
"If you look at the past compared with the present, you can see that we have made leaps and bounds of progress in the way of animal health and husbandry. These cages and confinement were not spurned into existence by a greedy desire for profit as you suggest, but rather a desire for reduced death and morbidity loss. I challenge you to name me one farmer who likes to lose animals to injury and disease. It's not pretty, nor fun, nor is it specific to any type of livestock system. Through greater control on the growing environments of the animals in a system, we have gained production and profit through doing what farmers have always done best - caring for animals and helping them to grow and produce, which leads to more people being fed around the globe. This is the same goal that farmers across America share today. Every day, people go hungry and the increased production offers a way of providing protein products to many under-privileged households that would otherwise not be able to afford the nutrition they are provided. Because animals consume feeds not edible to humans, they are a great way to continue producing protein products for future generations as we reach increased food consumption needs.
"With this in mind, I think it is imperative to consider what this bill will practically accomplish and what better goals might be set instead. With a bill expanding the size of cages to allow for freer movement, the uneducated individual would naturally assume that the animals would be happier, healthier and thus the individual would feel less guilt in consuming an animal that has led a better life. Despite this imagery which has been distributed in mass mailings and pamphlets worldwide, this is not necessarily the case. Chickens in larger cages are certainly not happier nor healthier after being pecked to death by their neighbors. Nor are calves' stress levels going to be reduced after being removed from the safety from weather and disease transmission within their individual hutches or tie-outs during a critical stage of their life (Interestingly enough, per your comment about veal calves, they're going to all be group-housed by 2017 anyhow, because we're going to make that work). What seems like cruelty, tight quarters or seclusion was almost always begun originally for the benefit of the animals. Now with new ideas about how to best care for animals, research on this issue is inconclusive and highly conditional still.
"Are there a few bad egg producers in the clutch that require legislation to force them to properly care for their animals? No, because those bad eggs still won't do anything differently after the legislation except clean up their act for a few audits. It's just like animal rights protesters. Is every single one of them a nude maniac that does their best to force their opinions down peoples' throats between jail terms? Of course not, but they sure do give people a bad name, don't they?
"Therefore, the legislation you touted in your comments will not actually accomplish in all cases the reform that you appear to desire. Instead, this is a perfect example of radical rights group-backed legislation aimed at the eventual removal of a critical source of nutrients from our food system. They come forth with cheap articles praising the new cage-free systems or the larger cage for group-caged layers, but without an actual interest in benefiting animals and despite proof of any success from past legislative initiatives, are you still willing to believe them? I am not, and I am saying that this is a childish way to go about trying to enact change in this country. Further, I am reiterating that national legislation has not proven beneficial to animals in the past (reference the plight of horses now that HSUS got their way with the Horse Slaughter legislation - big names such as Temple Grandin and PETA publicly disagree with this law). Lastly, I am saying that we need to hold off on these mass-legislative movements until we can really honestly say that we have found what's best for the animals, because isn't that what both of us are after in the end? If the animal-rights groups were truly after helping the animals, then they would agree. There are lots of people out researching how to improve the lives of animals on farms, they just need the chance to find the answers before someone goes and ruins the lives of millions of animals by pushing for laws which don't end up helping improve anything. Give research a chance to find the answers before you force failure upon everyone."
Friday, August 27, 2010
Impact of 4-H in Michigan
I wish that Governor Granholm (not the worst governor of Michigan ever, Google 'Mason') was reader of my blog because what I'm posting here today (courtesy of Marcus) should truly be of interest to her after she played around with cutting MSU extension last year. This is the 2009 publication about the impact of 4-H on the state of Michigan. This is absolutely worth the read.
For my welfare bit of the day, this article discusses the lack of a good way to evaluate the improvements in animal welfare on farms in the EU and emphasizes the need to develop better methods of evaluating farm animal welfare on large production facilities. You need to know why people are having trouble assessing welfare improvement among animals? It's because we've passed legislature so fast without the scientific background that needs to follow it in order to ensure that legislators and activists really know what they're talking about. Auditors of animal welfare are not able to distinguish what they're looking to see because the laws have been thrust upon us (both here in the US and in the rest of the world) before we've even been able to determine what the best protocol or the 'happier' animal really looks like. Again, science in this area is found to be lacking, and without scientific research to back up claims of improved animal welfare, the efforts of groups like HSUS and PETA truly don't accomplish what they're advertising to the public. But then again, with a final goal of eliminating animal products from the market, they sure are making great progress towards that, aren't they?
Also please read the Ohio Country Journal write-up on the HSUS deal back in June. Now all we have to do is hope that the care standards board doesn't turn out to be the same problem. :)
For my welfare bit of the day, this article discusses the lack of a good way to evaluate the improvements in animal welfare on farms in the EU and emphasizes the need to develop better methods of evaluating farm animal welfare on large production facilities. You need to know why people are having trouble assessing welfare improvement among animals? It's because we've passed legislature so fast without the scientific background that needs to follow it in order to ensure that legislators and activists really know what they're talking about. Auditors of animal welfare are not able to distinguish what they're looking to see because the laws have been thrust upon us (both here in the US and in the rest of the world) before we've even been able to determine what the best protocol or the 'happier' animal really looks like. Again, science in this area is found to be lacking, and without scientific research to back up claims of improved animal welfare, the efforts of groups like HSUS and PETA truly don't accomplish what they're advertising to the public. But then again, with a final goal of eliminating animal products from the market, they sure are making great progress towards that, aren't they?
Also please read the Ohio Country Journal write-up on the HSUS deal back in June. Now all we have to do is hope that the care standards board doesn't turn out to be the same problem. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)