AFAC Conferences

Taking the Offense on Animal Welfare

AFAC Livestock Care Conference focused on united effort

The 1999 AFAC Livestock Care Conference featured some of North America’s most prominent speakers on animal welfare and handling issues. One of the strongest messages that emerged was that the agricultural industry must remain united and be prepared to defend responsible practices in the face of accusations from animal rights activists.

The 1999 Livestock Care Conference hosted by the Alberta Farm Animal Care (AFAC) Association proved to be a shining example of strength in the union of an industry. Animal care specialists and representatives from all sectors of the agricultural industry, including beef, horse, poultry, hog and specialty meats, came together to examine animal welfare topics and issue a call-to-action against misconceptions being perpetuated by animal rights groups.

Above all, the agricultural industry must unite to launch a successful response to accusations from outside the industry, speakers told the audience at the Sheraton Cavalier in Calgary March 12. AFAC was formed to promote that united effort, says manager Susan Church.

“It surprises me when people from one segment of the livestock industry make negative comments about another segment of the industry,” Church says. “We all have to take the time to learn about each other, because if we’re divided on animal welfare issues, we won’t succeed.”

AFAC was formed in 1993 out of a partnership of livestock producers in Alberta. The mandate of the organization is to promote responsible, humane animal care within the livestock industry, to engage in discussion with the public about today’s animal agriculture, to monitor and participate in issues and legislation that affect animal care and to encourage research relevant to animal care.

To achieve those goals, AFAC has developed educational materials for students, the general public and the livestock industry. These resources include 4-H L.A.W. (Learning about Animal Welfare), the video “Farm Animal Welfare - Changing Attitudes,” various humane handling awareness and training courses and the annual Livestock Care Conference.

“AFAC realizes that discussions about sensitive animal welfare issues can often become heated and emotionally charged,” explains newly-elected AFAC chairman Mike Hart. “That’s why we set out to encourage open dialogue, based on facts and education, to help opposing groups reach an understanding.”

The Livestock Care Conference is a focal point of that mission. The 1999 conference was proof that all sectors of the agricultural industry can come together to promote the proactive, responsible animal welfare strategies of the entire industry.

Speakers provide food for thought

The speakers at the 1999 Livestock Care Conference challenged the audience and the entire industry with their presentations on animal welfare issues, the tactics of animal rights activists and response strategy. At the same time, presentations celebrated the successes of the livestock industry in improving animal welfare and humane transportation systems to date.

Complacency is not an option when it comes to dealing with the animal rights movement, speakers told the conference audience. The mornings speakers presented several examples of how developing a response to animal rights activists can preserve and even strengthen an industry. At the same time, refusing to respond can topple industries. Speakers in the afternoon, who represented various processing plants, told the audience how their companies redefined handling practices for better business and improved animal care.

Following are highlights of the presentations:

Defend responsible animal use, speaker tells animal care conference

Animal use groups should be prepared to defend responsible agricultural and experimental practices in the face of claims by the animal rights movement, says Patricia Guyda, president of the Montreal-based Canadians for Health Research (CHR).

Although CHR is focused primarily on educating society on the responsible use of animals for health research, she says the agricultural industry can benefit from much of what they’ve learned. The public has no reason not to believe what they are being told by animal rights activists if they are only hearing that side of the story, Guyda says.

She says it is crucial to distinguish between animal welfare and animal rights. The animal welfare movement has a long and respected tradition with the belief that humanity has the right to use animals, but equally asserts that humanity has a responsibility to ensure that all animals are properly treated. Guyda says that most people, including animal users, uphold these principles, even if they are not directly involved with the animal welfare movement.

The animal rights movements believes in the basic equality between human and animal life. That includes the belief that animals have a right not to be used by humans in any way.

The two groups differ significantly in their beliefs and in the methods they use to relay their messages to the public. Guyda says that, even though she is discouraged by the fear-related tactics sometimes used by animal rights extremists, there is some credit due to the animal rights movement. That’s because they’ve succeeded in getting the public and animal user groups to think about how animals are used, she says.

In order to effectively respond to animal rights claims, animal use groups have to identify ways to deliver their messages to the public. Credibility and accuracy, plus a knowledge of opponents and their approaches are critical, she advises.

PMU industry developed response to critics

In the face of a major attack from the animal rights movement, the pregnant mare urine (PMU) industry was able to launch a response, says Norm Luba, executive director of the North American Equine Ranching Information Council (NAERIC). The NAERIC approach was based on SWOT, or “strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats,” as well as an openness to the public, Luba says.

Starting in 1994, animal rights groups launched a campaign based on claims that horses were abused in the process of developing the PMU product. The critics wrote letters to gynecologists, demonstrated, retained celebrity spokespeople for their cause and published articles against the PMU industry in Canada and the pharmaceutical companies in the United States.

He says the pharmaceutical companies should have seen the criticism coming. However, they didn’t respond quickly enough, partly because of product security concerns, and partly because licensing restrictions from the Food and Drug Administration prevented them from doing so.

The response the industry developed, through NAERIC, was initially aimed at identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and eventually helped to build a stronger, more responsive industry for the future.

The agricultural industry will continue to be scrutinized, Luba acknowledges. He says that to develop effective responses, groups must take allegations from critics seriously, be proactive, think “outside the box,” and never sit back thinking enough has been done.

Alberta can learn from Atlantic experience, minister says

The animal rights movement has destroyed a vital way of life for generations of Newfoundlanders who depend on the ocean for their livelihood, says John Efford, Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador. The danger is that public policy can be influenced by the animal rights movement and their accusations, rather than the truth about how the industry operates, he says.

As happened in Newfoundland, a group unrelated to an industry can drive the decision-making process and craft public and media perception of that industry, says Efford. Unless steps are taken now, the agricultural industry in Alberta could experience the same treatment.

In the late 1970s, an anti-sealing animal rights group came into the province with a public relations campaign and began portraying Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as barbarians. From 1977 to 1995, no seals were hunted in Newfoundland. During that time, the seal population grew from about two-and-a-half million in total to in excess of six million in one species alone. In the meantime the cod fishery was shut down due to overfishing.

The growth of the seal population blocked the anticipated regeneration of the fishery. Efford says that’s because one seal will annually consume about two tonnes of fish, including valuable cod, herring and mackerel.

“After seven years, in 1999, the biomass of northern cod stocks is worse today than when we closed the fishery in 1992,” he says. “There’s only one answer for it - seals are eating our cod and the cod are not getting a change to return to commercial numbers.”

Efford says he realizes that people in Newfoundland and Labrador are responsible for contributing to overfishing and also for failing to respond to the animal rights publicity campaign. He hopes other industries across Canada can learn from their experiences.

Alberta meat processing plants develop humane systems

Alberta’s major beef, hog, poultry and specialty meat processing plants have discovered that incorporating specialized animal handling programs is good business and at the same time gives valuable support to a public increasingly interested in animal welfare.

Speakers representing Maple Leaf Poultry, Fletcher’s Fine Foods, Cargill Foods, IBP (Lakeside) Beef, and Bouvry Exports outlined how their companies have redefined animal handling procedures.

Barry Schneider, live operations and procurement manager with Maple Leaf Poultry, was instrumental in helping to develop a new handling and trucking program for the company. He says Maple Leaf began looking at improving its live haul system in 1991.

The new modular live haul system developed by Maple Leaf makes it easier to catch, load and transport the chickens. The system which was critiqued and endorsed by United States animal care specialist Dr. Temple Grandin, reduces handling and temperature stress on the birds and increases air flow through the truck. The end result is a significant reduction in bruising and deaths upon arrival at the plant.

Fletcher’s Fine Foods has also recently implemented a new handling system for the hogs that arrive at the plant for processing, says Dr. Matt Schoonderwoerd, a veterinarian with Fletcher’s Fine Foods in Red Deer.

Fletcher’s new processing system was developed in the Netherlands and approved by Dr. Temple Grandin. The system, which uses state-of-the-art stunning equipment, has been operational since September, 1998. The plant kills about 32,000 to 33,000 hogs per week. Fletcher’s goal in developing the new handling facilities was to process hogs in a manner that optimizes efficiency and minimizes stress for the animals.

Minimizing animal stress at each stage of processing is also a priority for Cargill and IBP (Lakeside Packers), Tim O’Byrne discovered on a recent tour of both plants. O’Byrne, a livestock handling consultant, shared his experience with the Livestock Care Conference audience.

He said the workers he observed at the facilities were experienced cattle handlers and the cattle were very quiet and calm as they walked to the processing floor. O’Byrne says the challenge for these companies is getting the facts out to the public in the midst of misconceptions perpetuated by animal rights activists.

Claude Bouvry, owner of Bouvry Export Limited, agrees that the agricultural industry is on the front lines as it defends responsible practices against the accusations of the animal rights movement. Bouvry’s Fort MacLeod facility processes horse, bison and ostrich meat.

There is a public perception that the horse meat industry is a very secretive one, but Bouvry says he regularly opens his facility to tours for the public and the media. He says that consumers of all types of meat products worldwide want a quality product, but more than ever before they also want to know that the animal has been raised and processed humanely.

The road ahead

“Each Livestock Care Conference we’ve had shows how far the livestock industry has come in understanding the importance of animal welfare in day-to-day business,” says Mike Hart, chairman of AFAC. “It also becomes clear how far we have to go.”

“There’s no room for complacency in ensuring our messages of responsible care reaches the public,”  he adds. “That communication will also make us better managers in the process.”