Livestock rules need penalties

OLDS, Alta. — Livestock codes of practice are only lip service unless audits and consequences for bad actions exist, says a California veterinarian.

Jennifer Walker, who works for Dean Foods, which supplies dairy products to companies like McDonald’s and Sysco Foods, said the public may be lulled into thinking these codes prescribe common practices, but not every farm follows standard operating procedures.

“For farms that take advantage of it, that is great, but they also don’t tend to be very robust to verify and follow up on what is being done,” she told the Alberta Farm Animal Care annual meeting in Olds March 23.

She also said the codes offer no protection to the farmer. A farm that ends up in an undercover video depicting serious animal abuse will be thrown under the bus even if a code of practice was in place.

Walker said animal welfare regulations in the United States were driven by undercover videos produced by animal rights groups such as the Humane Society of the U.S. or Mercy for Animals.

“We have been challenged, not on food safety, but on ethics,” she said.

The result is inconsistent state by state legislation, which makes it difficult for corporations such as Dean Foods, which buys milk from farmers across the country, to deal with a range of requirements.

“That is impossible to handle from a supply chain perspective.”

More corporations are driving higher standards of care, but she sees varying levels of customer expectations.

There are those she calls “box checkers” who go through the paperwork but ask few questions about what is happening until something bad happens.

The next group is made up of people who ask questions because they want to understand how farm animals are treated.

The final group has specific issues and uses academics for advice to develop animal welfare standards. The people in this group are critical and can produce significant change.

For example, Walker said McDonald’s invests considerable time and energy but does not get much credit for its support of animal welfare and sustainability initiatives. However, its emerging requirements for beef sustainability and treatment of laying hens can force change right back to the farm.

She urges farmers to stop saying their animals are well taken care of simply because they wouldn’t do otherwise. Instead, good welfare should be equated with ethics.

“Treating farm animals well does not make them our pets. It makes us good stewards and good human beings,” she said.

Canadian livestock and poultry groups have worked through the National Farm Animal Care Council to create codes of practice that are finding their way into commodity groups’ on-farm food safety programs, including audits.

The system is not perfect, said council manager Jackie Wepruk.

“I don’t know if an audit can do much more than be a snapshot in time,” she told the AFAC meeting.

“Industry groups come to us because they see value in developing or updating their codes because they know they will have something that is credible and helps build toward public trust,” she said in an interview.

The codes are meant to be practical and tailored to each commodity.

Commodity groups make take the codes to the next level by developing an animal care assessment module.

Good welfare practices may come down to moral rather than economic decisions, she added.

“Animal welfare is all about the ethics of what we ought to do with animals and what are the expectations. It is not strictly an economic conversation. It is an ethical conversation,” Wepruk said.

“There is still a lot of education that needs to go on with all people in respect to their ethical obligations in regards to their animals.”

Many livestock and poultry organizations have incorporated animal care modules in their on-farm food safety programs. In some cases, compliance is tied to their ability to sell their product. For example, Chicken Farmers of Canada audits farmers annually, and 97 percent are certified under their program.

Dairy Farmers of Canada is introducing an animal care assessment program that includes the 2009 code of practice. Called proAction, the program includes requirements for milk quality, safety, traceability, environmental care and animal welfare.

“The dairy code of practice has become the bible for the dairy industry,” said Mike Slomp of Alberta Milk.

The code of practice was distributed to all Canadian dairy farms and includes requirements as well as recommended practices.

Farmers were expected to adhere to the code, but the new program will see their practices assessed by trained auditors. The program starts with a benchmarking study to show how farmers stack up, and the next stage will be to work on improvements.

Holstein Canada will assess every dairy cow in the first two years of the program while it is doing classification scores.

Provincial organizations such as Alberta Milk are offering workshops on the program so farmers know what is required for transport, euthanasia, body condition score and other welfare barometers.

“We tell them exactly what is expected,” Slomp said.

About the author


  • Randy Janssen

    National animal rights
    groups like the HSUS, PETA and the ASPCA have become urban
    concentrated vegan cults. They raise millions of dollars by
    pretending to take care of dogs and cats, then spend it on attacks on
    agriculture and hunting. Local shelters complain about their
    aggressive fund raising sucking up all the money, so animals go
    wanting. … They
    have little or no experience with the animals they claim to protect
    and either misconstrue legitimate animal
    husbandry or take
    isolated instances of animal cruelty and say they are the norm. Their
    goal is to stop hunting by increments, passing laws against
    individual methods of hunting or shorten hunting seasons.
    They get away with this because of the urban population of the US
    is separated from its food production and large or wild animals. The
    country has become a society of small pet owners who view livestock
    the same as small lap dogs. If these groups have their way, primates
    will have the same rights as humans and meat eating will be
    outlawed. According to Bloomberg Financial Reports, their attack on
    food production is already causing an increase in cost. So unless
    you want to end up paying $10.00 a doz. for eggs, $20.00 a lb. for
    bacon $30.00 a lb. for chicken and $50.00 a lb. for beef, don’t
    support these groups.

    • crookedstick

      … Funny, i buy cage-free eggs at Trader Joes for $2.69. Organic, Cafe-free for 2.99

  • old grouchy

    My biggest problem with the codes of practice is that the overwhelming amount of these codes is from input from those with no crap on their boots. By this I mean this input comes from government bureaucrats, academic researchers and the screamers from the animal rights groups. There seem to be huge quantities of respect for the thinking from these groups and yet almost all of them (there are a few but almighty few) that actually do what they are ‘experts’ in. These experts know how it works, on paper, and that paper when faced with the real world is far too often not useful for anything (doesn’t even make toilet paper). The almost universal lack of practical experience (and here I refer to one’s own and not one’s grandfather or research assistants or associates) means that the regulations become ever more complicated without actually improving much of anything. But then of course farmers really don’t know how to do any of this stuff – – – right? That’s why these paper pushers get to tell farmers how they should be doing things – – – isn’t it?!? Well – – – its real easy to tell someone what they have done wrong after they have done it. Its quite another thing to get up there and do it right. The present codes already are a mess of all too often contradictory ideas and often enough impractical suggestions.

    Yes I have read some of the codes – – – I have also talked with some who have been on the code development teams and heard from them how their practical background thoughts were shunted out by the overwhelming flood of garbage from the paper crowd. This needs to change – – – and it should be changing now or there won’t be any agriculture and then when all these experts and their supporters in the cities are really hungry – – – maybe they will start to rethink their all too often useless paper edifices. Now that I think about it – – – maybe that’s what it’s time to do. Maybe its time for animal agriculture to go on the offensive. Say – – – no deliveries of any finished animals for 2 weeks in say a month (to allow ration changes so that over weights won’t happen), no milk delivered for 3 days in about 2 weeks and so on. Wonder what the 99.8% of the population that is dependent upon the grocery store will say then?


Stories from our other publications