 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|||
|
AFAC Conference Page |
LCC 2002 Summary Research—Refine—Rethink—Retool—Reassure
June 25, 2002 ... AFAC’s Livestock Care Conference (LCC) was a huge success. A record number of AFAC registrants attended (over 140) along with about 75-100 CALAS participants. The LCC was also well covered by the media, including urban sources, (i.e., three articles in the Edmonton Journal). Key themes emerged from the presentations:
Each speaker reflected components of these themes in their presentation. Below is a summary of those talks. Applying the 3 R's to Farm Animal Management Dr. John Church, Animal Welfare Specialist, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Over 40 years ago Russel and Burch (1959) proposed "the three R’s" (reduction, replacement, or refinement) as principles for improving the welfare of animals used in research settings. While reducing numbers or replacing animals in farm animal management is unlikely (meat consumption continues to rise), opportunities exist to refine many practices. Animal rights activists (e.g. PETA) have raised the level of farm animal welfare awareness, but not the level of vegetarianism. Public awareness of livestock welfare issues is having a growing impact on farming practices. The public expects that animal production industries will provide high standards of animal welfare and humane treatment for animals in their care. Also, agriculture industry is recognizing that livestock welfare is crucial to successful economics. Increasingly global policies and legislation are requiring the use of anesthesia and analgesia to reduce pain and distress in farm animals. Potentially painful procedures within animal agriculture include castration, dehorning, ear notching, teeth clipping, beak trimming, comb and wattle removal, and tail docking. The public perception of a procedure can often be more important than the perception of pain in the animals themselves, in determining the fate of a procedure. This has led to the inappropriate banning of many agricultural practices in the European Union for emotional reasons rather than scientific rationale. Livestock welfare initiatives must be grounded in science. Livestock producers are increasingly being asked by consumers to provide assurances about the quality of the food they produce, including the demonstration of responsible animal care. The Velvet Antler Removal Certification Program, developed cooperatively between the Alberta Elk Association and the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, is the closest system in Canada to fulfilling the requirements of an assurance program for animal welfare. It is only lacking an external audit by an independent third party. Alberta has been a leader in the area of farm animal welfare. The province is well positioned to take a proactive role in livestock welfare research. Alberta depends significantly on the export and trade of animals and so livestock welfare is important to the province if it is to participate fully in the global marketplace. Research is needed to ensure sound decision-making with regard to animal care practices and their refinement. Some practices may no longer be necessary, while others can be improved upon. Research is needed in analgesia/anesthesia use for mitigating pain during routine farm animal management practices. The agricultural industry has an ethical responsibility, and a commercial interest, in conducting scientific research aimed at improving farm animal welfare. Quality assurance programs that incorporate animal welfare, as one of the auditable components of the program, help reassure consumers. While refinements of procedures may sometimes be necessary to enhance animal welfare, they must be done with the benefit of sound scientific research. Improved Tracking Procedures for Cattle Mick Price, Professor, Agriculture, Foods and Nutritional Sciences, University of Alberta The application of modern communication strategies in tracking cattle has many potential commercial applications, including disease control. Disease can be contained if it can be tracked. Mandatory cattle identification is a significant step in reducing diseases like Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). The mandatory cattle identification program began in January 2001. In July 2002 mandatory cash penalties will be imposed if cattle are unidentified with CCIA ear tag identification. Existing technology offers huge opportunities in cattle identification and tracking. For value-based marketing producers can:
The livestock tracking technology used at Kansella Research Station illustrates some of the possibilities of available technology:
Producers can improve the efficiency of their animal management with already available technologies. Tracking can monitor the productivity of individual animals, thereby offering information into the genetics of that animal and allowing for an improved selection process. Livestock Transport in Alberta Tim O’Byrne, Calico Beef Consulting In the past the attitude was, “get the animals loaded, and get on your way”. Now, there is an understood need for accountability – including for animal welfare. AFAC recently commissioned an update to a 1994 review of livestock transportation in Alberta. The complete report will be available soon. Key players in the transportation process were identified, available data was collected and stakeholders were interviewed. Transportation is a complex process, involving many different participants, destinations, obstacles, and environmental variables. The following numbers of animals are on Alberta roads each year:
These numbers do not include farm-to-farm, farm to pasture or in-house hog movements. Livestock transportation from Alberta into the U.S. in 2001 includes:
The “Relocation Process” in livestock transportation has three stages:
A lot can happen during the Relocation Process and we all have to take responsibility for our share of the transportation process. The AFAC transportation review update identified 80 points of concern that need to be addressed. However, this is not just an Alberta problem. Wherever you go the issues are the same. We need to adopt a “heads-up” attitude, as we don't know what is coming down the road. Livestock transportation is an important component to quality assurance and key to any disease control contingency plan, like FMD. Livestock truckers are a visible part of our industry. We have to help them to do a good job. Truckers have stated that they want a certification process to ensure adequate training for livestock transporters. They want a 1-800- “please-help-me” line and clear euthanasia protocols to follow to ensure the humane treatment of animals in their care. The good news is that better commercial transport vehicles and innovations for transportation have improved how animals are handled during transport. AFAC’s livestock handling and hauling courses have educated many on proper livestock transportation. However, we still need more education, communication (between enforcement and industry) and data. Some procedural changes would also improve animal well-being during transport (e.g., reduced delays loaded livestock units). Poultry Selection Criteria: is this industry sustainable? Frank Robinson, Professor, Poultry Management and Physiology, University of Alberta Egg consumption has increased over the last six years. Chicken meat consumption has steadily risen from 16.4 kgs per capita in 1965, to 35 kgs per capita in 2000. The poultry industry has done well. 38% of the poultry meat market sector goes to hotel and restaurant industries. Where have we come from in the poultry industry? Originally chickens were dual-purpose birds, females were used for egg laying, and males were used for meat. In the early 1900’s mainly purebred lines existed. The term “broiler production” started to be used in the late 1940’s. Large-scale turkey production was occurring in the 1950’s. From 1949-59 selection for increased body weights and higher breast yields was producing results. The Cornish chicken was added to mixed breeding programs in the 1960’s, producing a bird that at 9 weeks was 4.7 lbs. In 2002 we have a Broiler Poultry supply chain that includes, primary breeders, hatching egg producers, hatcheries, broiler producers and broiler processors. A four-way broiler cross breeding program puts intense selection pressure on males. One male can be responsible for 500,000 commercial broiler offspring. Key points about table egg hens:
Feed conversion in laying hens has improved consistently since the 1950’s. Mortality rates have decreased significantly (15.5 % in 1950-60’s, 5.1% in 1980-90’s). The selection of birds for early maturity and egg laying has contributed to osteoporosis in laying hens. Osteoporosis can cause:
Behavioral issues such as hysteria, cannibalism and fearfulness can exist, though some strains are better than others. It is important to match the genotype of the bird with the appropriate environment. In broilers, the number of days to market decreases every year. In 1925 it took over 100 days for a chicken to reach 2.2 kgs. Now it takes just over 40 days. If this rate of growth continues, by 2120 broilers will hatch and go to market on the same day <joke>. Broiler feed conversion is very efficient and has improved substantially over the years. Breast muscle yield has also increased significantly over time. The selection for rapid growth has resulted in problems with Sudden Death Syndrome and ascites. We have Ferrari birds, but we have to drive them like Colts. However, primary breeders have done a great job of reducing the incidence of leg problems over the years. We have much fewer leg problems now. Feed restricted broiler breeders are a welfare problem area. Parent stocks have the appetites of their broiler offspring, but must be feed restricted to maintain reproductive ability. Hatching egg producers have a tough job. It is a tough order with broiler breeders, to manage them for both rapid growth and reproduction. Excessive body weight will result in excessive follicle development and hence lower reproduction. A critical balance must be struck. The challenge is to make the bird work. Every breeder company has broiler breeder manuals with feeding target rates. Our breeder parents are being feed restricted more and more every year. The number of primary breeder companies has been falling. We now have four primary breeder companies, down from seven in 1995. The gene pool is not wide. The University of Alberta has nine rare breeds of birds, which are used as control groups in poultry experiments. The University disperses chicks to interested people as an insurance policy for the future genetics of the poultry industry. Poultry offers a cheap, quality protein source. The conversion rate of plant materials into meat is very high in poultry. Over the years disease resistance has been improved in poultry stocks. Our knowledge of quantitative genetics has allowed for improved reproduction (in layers) and growth (in broilers). However, there are serious questions that must be asked:
What it will take to bring about a change to more sustainable breeding programs?
Farm Animal Housing: time for change Michael Appleby, Vice-President, Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture, Humane Society of the United States Worldwide, there is a mood for change in farm animal housing. Refinement of farm animal management is possible now by implementing what we already know about housing, transport and slaughter. Our scientific understanding of animals and animal housing is key to what we do and what we should do. In every country in the world, except Switzerland, it is acceptable to keep livestock in less space than their body area. People have different approaches to welfare, emphasizing different aspects:
An example of actual change to improve animal welfare is the EU phasing out of battery cages. Widespread public pressure to “ban the battery cage” has existed since 1964 (spurred by Ruth Harrison’s book Animal Machines). The Council of Europe proposed a Convention on the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes in 1976. The EU and national governments funded research into alternatives, including enriched cage systems. The EU passed a Directive in 1986 specifying a minimum cage size, but public opinion demanded more. In 1999 a new Directive was agreed upon that phases out conventional laying cages by still allows enriched cage systems. Meanwhile, in North America, there has only been one Symposium on Poultry Welfare. However, the mood for change is slowly catching up to Europe. The market for non-cage eggs in Europe led the way for change, and increased demand led to standards for free ranged eggs in 1985. Some groups question why we've rushed into change. It has actually taken half a century for these small changes. Why has there been a rapid change to intensiveness and a slow change to improve animal welfare? The major obstacle to improved farm animal housing is the pressure for cheap food. Farmers have helped promote some myths related to a cheap food policy, like, “we produce cheap food because consumers want it.” Of course consumers choose on price, but it is not the sole factor in their buying decisions. The primary cause of cheap food is competition between producers and competition between retailers. Effects of pressure for cheap food include:
Why should shoppers be given the whole responsibility for the environment and animal welfare? Pressure for cheap food is leading to problems that we as a society should care about. Milk is cheaper than water – an extraordinary situation for producers. Major societal concerns, like the environment and animal welfare, should not be strictly run by competition. The proportion of income that people spend on food has declined for many years (22% in 1950, 10% in 2000). Most people could readily pay more for food, and most already do by buying specialty or convenience foods. Major improvements in animal welfare could be achieved with only small increases in price to the consumer. The cost of banning sow stalls is an example. The impact on the cost of production would be about 5%. The impact at the retail level would end up being only 1%. [Dr. Appleby offered a longer rationale on how he came to these numbers during his presentation] Long-term improvements to animal welfare with equal profits to producers could be had, but it implies a short-term decrease in profits due to short-term costs in infrastructure. The deployment of public subsidies and gradual change could avoid the short-term costs to producers, although protection is needed against imports from countries with lower welfare standards. The obstacle to change is economic inertia – producers resist change because buyers expect low prices. The power of retailers is increasingly becoming an incentive for change, though. We are in a time of radical change. What are the aims of our society? We no longer need improved or increased production efficiency in our livestock like we did twenty years ago. We need to work together to make changes, and support farmers in exploring mechanisms to achieve improvements in farm animal housing. Introduction to Afternoon Session David Fraser, Professor, Head of Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia A trend is growing where corporate clients are asking for, and the public are expecting, animal welfare standards. It is difficult to predict what will ultimately happen in Canada, but animal welfare standards are going global. The Office International des Epizooties (OIE) is recognized as a reference for animal health regulations by the World Trade Organization (WTO). The OIE is an intergovernmental organization representing 162 countries (including Canada), whose mandate includes the promotion of harmonized regulations and international animal health standards. Animal welfare now forms an integral part of its scientific and normative priorities. It is important to predict what OIE animal welfare standards will be. We are entering uncharted territory at breakneck speed and we need to ask ourselves, “Are there things that producers and industry organizations can do to prepare?” Important considerations include:
An interesting point about the drive for animal welfare reforms is that these changes are not happening in Canada and the U.S. through political means, but through the corporate world. The corporate world is more centralized and has more power to effect change. Social responsibility has moved from the political to the corporate sphere. This has resulted in more rapid change, but there is also decreased public accountability. Alberta, specifically AFAC, is once again the leader in Canada and on top of these issues. Animal Welfare: What does it mean in Burger Kingdom Chet England, Senior Director, Product Safety & Regulatory, Burger King Corporation Burger King statistics:
Animal Volumes (U.S.)
Burger King has global reach and accountability, including social accountability. The company is working on partnerships, coalitions and joint ventures in implementing new changes and standards regarding animal welfare. Support for animal welfare comes right from the top management:
Burger King is not fronting for PETA. Animal advocacy groups had some influence on making Burger King aware of animal welfare issues. PETA had a point, and Burger King listened. They are credited with forcing us to put animal welfare into our corporate priorities. However, the credit, or blame for the content and application of animal welfare standards rests with the quick service food companies. Dialogue with PETA ended 2 1/2 years ago. Burger King developed a three-part strategy:
Burger King is committed to communication with its suppliers, consumers, the media and government. We want to explain what we are doing and why so there is a common understanding of what is going on. We are also aligning ourselves with our competition, suppliers and regulatory bodies, to make sense of the issues and to be consistent in our approaches. Consumers do not want the details, but do want assurances that things are being done right and that someone is looking out for their interests. They depend upon us to deal with the issue fairly. If they don’t trust Burger King on the issue they will go elsewhere. The future is cloudy to some degree. In the U.S. complete plant certifications will be done by June 2002. Verification programs will be complete by the end of the year in the U.S. We are looking forward to working with producers and producer groups on developing standards in dairy and swine. Be involved with us. Don't pretend it will go away. Look at it as an opportunity for industry links to be built to improve the welfare of food animals in the supply chain. We are nowhere near ready to go back to farms on the production end and are still focusing on slaughter facilities. All of this has to be commercially viable, so we welcome documentation of the costs that need to be recovered by our suppliers. 25-30% of Burger King’s frozen beef trimmings come from New Zealand and Australia. Those countries will be held to equal standards as domestic products and are next in line for standardized animal welfare practices. New Pressures - New Expectations: Safeway's Role & Commitment in an Ever-changing Marketplace Toby Oswald, Vice President, Public Affairs Canada Safeway Ltd. An overview of PETA:
PETA has engaged in variety of bizarre media stunts to attract attention to their cause. In San Francisco on February 5, 2002 PETA launched a boycott of Safeway. PETA came to Canada in April, holding press conferences in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina and Saskatoon. They showed a video (shown during presentation) depicting the abuse of pigs and chickens, which they claim highlights standard practice in the livestock industry.
As a consumer, removed from farming, seeing this video is impactful. It creates a “push back” that we experience at Safeway and explains why the media tends to pick this up. After PETA showed this video at their press conferences our consumer feedback phones lit up from concerned consumers. It touched a chord. Seaboard Farms, one of the farms mentioned in the video did address the abuse issue. The employees involved were fired, with one being on criminal charges. Safeway realized it needed to do more and take this seriously. We took the approach “keep your friends close, your enemies closer.” Safeway reached an agreement with PETA that includes:
Consumer perception is not always based on exact science, which is why organizations like PETA are successful. However, from a retail perspective, consumers are the last link in the supply chain. There is an expectation that the Retailer is an advocate on behalf of consumers. We have implicit trust that procedures are followed and laws are adhered to. Retailers, and their partners, need to have a cohesive direction and be able to make a strong statement to their customers about their commitment to animal welfare issues. Farm animal welfare is a national issue, but there are no federal government plans to drive this. We need an umbrella group in Canada to take the lead. This umbrella group should include:
There has been a move towards humane labeling of meat products (BC SPCA, Winnipeg Humane Society) due to consumer skepticism regarding intensive farming operations. A recent survey suggests consumers are willing to pay 5% more for humane handling. Safeway and AFAC are developing a plan to respond to future animal rights challenges. IPB Beef Welfare and Handling Program Warren Klymchuk, Quality Assurance Manager, Lakeside Packers Lakeside/IBP is now a member of the Tyson food family. Its feedlot, which was designed by Dr. Temple Grandin, has a capacity of 75,000 head. Approximately 4,000 animals are slaughtered, with 3100 carcasses processed per day. We handle a lot of animals and we’ve heard from researchers, transporters and retailers on the issue of animal welfare. Animal welfare programs have not shown up overnight. The programs are important, but easier to do if people are in tune with the philosophy. We owe our livelihood to the animals. IBP’s Handle With Care program is our commitment to animal care. The program is a series of techniques that are strategically applied to all animals at the appropriate process steps. Nobody gains when livestock are mistreated. Healthy animals that are properly handled and properly slaughtered are fundamental to the safe, efficient and profitable running of our plant. Scared animals can be dangerous. Calm animals move smoothly and efficiently. Companies, like Burger King, now require humane animal care, so it affects profitability. We cannot afford to not handle animals properly. The Handle With Care program has support from the very top of management and it needs this to make the standards work. Our animal welfare team is everybody. Everybody is trained on Best Practices for handling, holding and stunning – properly, consistently and painlessly. When livestock arrives it is unloaded in a timely manner. Ramps are non-slip and do not exceed 20°. We never unload non-ambulatory animals if it will hurt them. Inspectors need to check an animal and the right equipment is needed. We kill non-ambulatory animals on the truck. The key is prevention and to be prepared. Our livestock holding facilities are made of non-slip surfaces; proper handling is impossible on slippery floors. Bruising, from animals slipping, causes a loss of profit. Animals are given food and water. Noise is minimized in handling areas to prevent animals from getting too excited. In our handling facilities no mishandling of animals is tolerated. Vocalizations are monitored, as this is an indication of excitement. Prodding is minimized and is at the lowest possible current. Animals are moved at a normal walking speed, with techniques that facilitate efficient, calm animal movements. Equipment, and its maintenance, is very important for stunning an animal. We have zero tolerance for mis-stunning as this causes pain to the animal. All employees are trained to assess signs of insensibility. Lakeside/IBP has its own verification program. The objective is to ensure that Lakeside is in full compliance with all Government regulations and IBP’s guidelines regarding the moral and ethical treatment of animals. It's good for the animals, is reason alone. The audit criteria within our verification program is based on science and includes:
Third party audits are starting. Wendy’s will be at Lakeside/IBP this summer, Burger King on July 23 and Silliker/Costco on June 27. Lakeside/IBP is committed to its animal welfare policies. Our business depends on good animal welfare practices. These expectations are equal for our livestock suppliers. John Church We have the Animal Protection Act to keep animals free from distress. However, it does not go far enough to offer assurances for our consumers. We have the Codes of Practice for the care and handling of farm animals, which are good. However, some producers have never heard of them and most have never read them. Generally they know what is in the Codes, but maybe don't follow them in their entirety. Who uses the Codes? The government, in talks with producers; The SPCA, in enforcement and education. The Codes are not mandatory and therefore cannot be enforced. However, some provinces have integrated the Codes into their animal protection legislation. In Australia, welfare standards for poultry have been turned into an accreditation program with the first comprehensive welfare audits being done. (Note: a video clip was shown describing the audit process). In Canada we have a voluntary Code, but we need to audit its standards. We need to give consumers assurances that animals are humanely treated. I’m not sure we can do this in a non-audited system. We have beef producers in the U.S. adhering to an audited standard. Canadian producers are not under that same standard. Could this lead to trade issues where Canadian beef products are not allowed across the border because of animal welfare standards? The Codes in Canada are a starting point and baseline. Industry needs to take the lead in developing enhancements. We need to put the Codes into our on-farm quality assurance programs. Including animal welfare as part of on-farm quality assurance has been all but ignored. Producer Initiatives Driving Change Aart Okkema, Executive Board Member, AFAC & Alberta Milk Today I am speaking on behalf of the board and members of AFAC. AFAC believes it is vital to recognize the efforts of our farmers and those in the business of handling livestock to lead and drive continuous animal welfare improvements. It is also important to identify what we see as necessary components of a good, logical plan to continue in this leadership role. Researchers, retailers, processors, educators, regulators and livestock producers are all responsible for animal welfare and must work together. Producers must take a leadership role. We have seen what happens when those responsible for the care of livestock don’t lead, don’t keep ahead and don’t respond to issues and societal values, by fixing what needs fixing. In Europe legislative directives have driven animal welfare changes. In the U.S. the marketplace has stepped in. Yes corporations did receive pressure from animal activists, but they saw the problems that were not being attended to. They filled the void. As a result, livestock groups, USDA and meat processors in the States have had to respond quickly. In Canada producers have decided to work collectively to take a leadership role in animal welfare because we knew we needed to, and historically producers in Canada, particularly the West, have always taken an active role in directing the future of our business. We have a solid platform from which we can springboard future action. Since the early 90’s, Canadian producers have actively promoted responsible animal care through:
From this base producers in Alberta have taken several other steps to build a stronger “push” towards animal welfare improvements. We have learned that industry must stay involved with all aspects of animal welfare. We have learned that to fix or improve, we must be able to measure. In order to measure, we must be able to define. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the humane management of cull livestock and the transportation of livestock. Three examples of producer initiatives driving change in Alberta come from the dairy, pork and poultry industries. Dairy
Pigs
Laying Hens
All of these improvements have been done hand in hand with provincial government support and involvement of the Alberta SPCA’s livestock protection services. The Alberta Livestock Protection System (ALPS) is a three-way partnership of these groups and Alberta agriculture industry to tackle issues and problems collectively. The livestock industry in Alberta has also supported the need for public funds to be used for credible, effective and consistent enforcement of the Animal Protection Act in Alberta. We need to actively support two other areas: research, and future certification processes. Any changes in housing, genetics, transportation and invasive procedures must be based on good science. We support a statement Dr. David Fraser made in his 1993 paper “Assessing Animal well-being. Common Sense, Uncommon science,”
For three years AFAC has stated that animal welfare is a component of quality assurance. To verify with confidence that all livestock are humanely raised, handled and killed the Canadian industry must be prepared to prove it. We already have an excellent system and level of care in place, but we have to prove it and let the consuming public know. To this end AFAC and FAC Saskatchewan, together with the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors are preparing a discussion paper on this subject for the Canadian livestock and food industry, which will be released in 4 weeks. Also, the Alberta Egg Producers are planning to pilot an animal welfare audit program with their on-farm Start Clean program. In conclusion:
|
