If consumers lose trust in the industry, the result is regulation, warns an animal welfare expert
OLDS, Alta. — The 17th century French philosopher Rene Descartes believed animals were cleverly designed machines, and humans had no obligation to treat them well because they were mindless and lacked feelings.
He favoured live animal dissection, arguing they did not feel pain, despite their screams as they were cut open.
“There has been lots of discussion whether or not animals feel pain over the years,” said Ed Pajor, professor of animal welfare at the University of Calgary’s faculty of veterinary medicine.
“There is no question, and no producers or researchers really believe that animals don’t feel pain,” he said at a pain management workshop in Olds Jan. 27.
Read Also
Calf hormone implants can give environmental, financial wins
Hormone implants can lead to bigger calves — reducing greenhouse gas intensity, land use intensity and giving the beef farmer more profit, Manitoba-based model suggests.
Pain is real and some farm practices, directly or indirectly, cause acute and/or chronic pain.
Some consumers today are questioning animal treatment during castration, dehorning, branding, beak trimming and tail docking. They may not understand livestock housing systems or antibiotic resistance, but they do know what pain and discomfort is.
“Consumers actually understand pain and strongly believe it should be mitigated,” Pajor said.
The most recent Canadian codes of practice for humane handling of pigs, cattle, horses and other species have included recommendations on pain control.
Pressure to change some handling practices will continue to mount as consumers in Canada and overseas press their demands that producers take steps to alleviate pain.
Producers can find it difficult to tell when animals are suffering, but there are certain signs, said Pajor. For example, a lame dairy cow may display a spinal arch, head bob, reluctance to bear weight, tracking up and joint flexion.
“We can’t ever really know what the animal is experiencing or how bad that pain might be,” he said.
Some procedures that cause pain, such as branding, castration and dehorning, are necessary to protect farm workers and other animals, but that won’t necessarily save producers from consumer backlash.
“That may be true, but consumers who do not understand animal agriculture may not see it that way,” said Pajor.
He added that there is little evidence to suggest that pain mitigation efforts affect animal performance measurements, such as average daily gain.
But production and economic effects require need more study.
Pajor said one U.S. study found 83 percent of people surveyed agreed it is wrong to cause farm animals pain, injury or stress.
About 75 percent said farm animals should be protected from feeling physical pain and most agreed animals can feel pain as humans do.
As well, future international trade agreements could further pressure producers to include more pain management practices.
The recent European Union-Canadian free trade agreement included animal welfare, although it did not specify what might be required.
Pajor also cited the World Trade Organization ruling, which upheld the EU ban on Canadian seal products because of the concern about public morals.
“It was the first time animal welfare was upheld as a trade barrier.”
He also cited the U.S. restaurant chain Chipotle, which in January, removed pork from 600 restaurants because of a supplier’s pig housing setup, which the company deemed unacceptable.
