Picking a side in the animal welfare debate

by Megan Lawrence

Northeast Oklahoma cattle producers were reminded of winter management and gained a new perspective on animal welfare debates at the recent KOMA Beef Cattle Conference in Dewey, Oklahoma.

Randy Pirtle, Washington Co. Oklahoma State University Extension director, began the day with things to consider during cold weather when raising cattle.

According to Pirtle, the main concern during severe cold weather is no water.

“We learned from northern states who do face this concern every year, cattle will eat snow in order to survive,” said Pirtle. “It is a learned behavior, it may take three or four days before they will start but cattle will eat snow in order to meet their daily water intake needs.” However, according to him, cattle would have to eat snow all day in order to meet their requirements, but they will eat it.

He mentioned the daily water requirement needs for cattle is five to 11 gallons of water per head per day.

Pirtle also discussed how cold weather will affect body temperature on cattle.

“Remember when cattle have lower body temperatures they will require more energy,” he said. “Keep better quality forages available for the animals who need it the most.”

Pirtle stressed the importance of a mineral supplement and the need for vitamin A, without vitamin A animals will develop a deficiency which can cause reproductive problems later. Also, lice control is needed as lice can survive during cold weather and appear during warmer weather.

He concluded talking about the need for shelter especially in severe weather, since animals will lose more energy when wet than dry.

Jayson Lusk, agricultural economics professor at Oklahoma State University, spoke about the animal welfare debate and public perception of modern agriculture.

“I start by telling you, speaking about animal welfare and animal rights is like talking about religion and politics,” Lusk joked.

According to Lusk, the animal welfare debate began in the swine and poultry industries and is moving into the other sectors of agriculture.

The average consumer is reading more books, watching more films and seeking out information on agriculture and these books, films and literature are not friendly to modern agriculture, according to him.

Lusk feels, the general public does not understand modern agricultural practices and perceives all farms as they were 100 years ago.

“A picture is worth a thousand words and when the public sees pictures of chickens in cages and hogs in gestation crates their perception of production agriculture meets reality and they don’t like what they see,” said Lusk.

According to him, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a powerful organization which raised five million dollars for the Proposition Two Bill which passed in California last year. This bill will prohibits the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.

Lusk provided suggestions for producers as the animal welfare debate is not going away. First, the producers need to emphasize the cost compared to the trade offs.

“The general public is concerned about agriculturists making a profit and the public is not aware how policy affects producers,” he said.

Second, consumers have a very positive image of farmers but consumers do not understand how regulations impact farmers, he mentioned.

Lusk reminded producers by adopting more efficient practices is actually providing the consumer with cheaper food which is what the consumer is after.

“We have to realize food is cheaper than it has ever been and people can afford to spend more money than they once did,” Lusk said.

Lusk concluded with encouraging producers to be open to change, to not be afraid of having a dialogue and develop creative solutions in how to handle the animal welfare debate.

Scott Dewald, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association, concluded the topic of animal welfare with a discussion on animal rights legislation.

“HSUS is the gorilla we need to be concerned about, Dewald said. “They raised 86 million dollars last year alone for the use of animal rights campaigns.”

Dewald mentioned, HSUS uses pictures to play with the emotions of people in why production agriculture is wrong.

“These organization start in the states where the public has the greatest disconnect from the farm and then make things happen,”he said.

“We have to remain uniform in the message we present to the public,”said Dewald. “The only way agriculture could bring a stop to groups like HSUS is for HSUS to make everybody in agriculture mad at the same time instead of focusing on individual areas.”

Dewald concluded by saying, “we will win this battle by informing and educating consumers why we do, what we do for a living.

Text Only