| Introduction | Glossary |
| Discussion | References & Suggested Reading Supplemental Reading General Guidelines Books Videos Other References
|
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Jack L. Albright
Professor of Animal Sciences and Veterinary Medicine
Lilly Hall, Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
Animals have contributed to human welfare since prehistoric times. The domestication of plants and animals for food, fiber, and other purposes was an integral part of the development of agriculture (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology [CAST] 1981).
During the years in which humans and animals have interacted since animal domestication, changes have been made in both the animals and their husbandry. The act of male castration, possibly the first surgery, was practiced first on humans without anesthesia (CAST, 1981). Later, large animal species were castrated as part of the domestication process. Without the widespread use of this incidental surgery early in the animal's life, control of cattle for the development of settled agriculture would have been delayed. Use of oxen (castrated male bovine) as the first nonhuman power source made possible the production of enough grain to release some of the people from the responsibility of food production (CAST, 1981). This, in turn, permitted the development of civilization with decreasing agricultural orientation.
Today, people use animals to ride; to provide power; to serve as guards; to assist with specific types of jobs; and to become subjects for research. Many people also find satisfaction in companionship from pets, as well as from the use of dogs for hunting, horses for riding, and various animals as participants in competitive events. However, the primary importance of domestic animals for people in the United States is as a source of milk, eggs, meat, wool, hair, leather, pharmaceuticals, and other byproducts.
DISCUSSION
Mench and Van Tienhoven (1986) report that remarkable increases in the efficiency of poultry and livestock production have occurred during the last half-century. In the United Sates, for example, the number of eggs a hen lays annually has doubled during this period, while the amount of feed consumed for each egg produced has decreased by 50 percent. Because of these improvements in egg production and feed efficiency, the cost of eggs to the consumer since 1925 has risen by only 40 percent, which is considerably less than the cost increases of most other consumer goods. Similar trends are apparent in beef, pork, poultry meat, and dairy production (CAST 1980).
Many factors have contributed to these improvements. Major roles in increasing efficiency and improving animal health have been played by sophisticated techniques of artificial selection; advances in the detection, treatment, and prevention of disease; mechanization of farm labor; and the development of nutritionally balanced animal feeds. In addition, the increasing use of light- and temperature-controlled housing provides protection from extremes of weather and predation and permits the control of the photoperiod necessary to stimulate growth and reproduction (Mench and Van Tienhoven 1986).
Food and Production Guidelines
Farmers and consumers have benefited greatly from the modernization of animal agriculture. However, since the publication of "Animal Machines -- The New Factory Farming Industry," by Ruth Harrison (1964), public concern about the treatment of farm animals has risen steadily. Harrison found most of her examples in the farming and veterinary press. With a foreword by Rachel Carson, of "Silent Spring" fame, Harrison's book was especially critical of (1) the use and misuse of hormones, antibiotics, and additives to animal feeds and (2) the care and handling of farm animals, especially hens kept in cages and veal calves housed in crates.
This book landed like a bomb in England. Within a year the Brambell Report (1965) to Parliament, which inquired into farm animal welfare, was published. The investigation was followed by the release of various Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock in the U.K. (1971) including chickens, turkeys, pigs, cattle, sheep, rabbits, and ducks. The codes are advisory; failure to observe them is not in itself an offense. They have legal standing, however, and a person cannot claim ignorance of them as a defense.
The passage of legislation regulating animal production in England and the European Economic Community is complex and analyses of it can be found elsewhere (Ewbank, 1988). Similar legislation has been proposed by animal welfare groups in the United States.
A growing number of U.S. agricultural commodity groups have guidelines and codes of practice on animal welfare in place. Guides that have been produced voluntarily by industry provide good examples of the ethical placement of priority on animal care and handling, as well as the self-policing nature of industry (See Supplemental Reading -- General Guidelines). A useful starting point for U.S. guidelines on farm animals is the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching (Consortium, 1988). Chapters 5 through 11 include separate guidelines for husbandry for beef cattle, dairy cattle, horses, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and veal calves. The guide was prepared by animal scientists, veterinarians, industry representatives, and agricultural engineers.
Certain commercial husbandry procedures that may cause some temporary discomfort or pain are done to sustain the long-term welfare of animals. These special agricultural practices are widely accepted as standard operating procedures if they are:
Husbandry procedures and production methods should be revised as research at agricultural research stations and elsewhere suggests improvements. Research on improved methods and procedures is encouraged (Consortium 1988).
Cruelty is defined as having or showing indifference to, or pleasure in, another's pain or suffering. Producer-originated animal suffering has been categorized in three areas:
Most humane societies can identify animal suffering and follow through with legal prosecution. There should be no place in any industry for those who mistreat animals.
Cases of deprivation are difficult to resolve, as they involve the denial of certain, perhaps less vital, needs of the animal's environment. In some cases, these needs have not been definitely established. The veal industry is an example. Earlier introduced as HR2859 and HR84, the Veal Calf Protection Act (1989) assumed that close quarters and lack of physical contact among veal calves caused behavioral and social deprivation. The counter-argument is that placing the animals in individual stalls helps prevent spread of disease. This issue and related ones concerning rigid diet, iron status, additives, and government regulation, as well as the need for further research, have been carefully stated. They remain unresolved (Schwartz 1990).
That farm animals can suffer and have "behavioral needs" was expressed in the Brambell Report (1965) from England. Since that time, many English and other European animal welfare advocates, administrators, and scientists have accepted "behavioral needs" as doctrine. In the United States, issues related to animal behavior, physiology, the external appearance of animals, ways of expressing emotion, learning processes, and "behavioral needs" are still being discussed. Research and interpretation concerning farm animal perception and cognition are needed (Curtis and Stricklin 1991).
A scientific assessment of animal welfare was compiled earlier by Fox (1984), who studied welfare determinants; cognitive ethology; animal sentience, sapience, and self-awareness; and animal consciousness, feeling, and suffering. Duncan and Petherick (1991) have distinguished between needs and desires, sensing or detecting, feeling and perceiving, memory and learning (expectation or anticipation), recall, and awareness. More recently, the idea has emerged that welfare is mainly (Dawkins 1990) or solely (Duncan 1993; Duncan and Petherick 1991) dependent on what the animal feels. Stanley Curtis has stated that farm animal regulations are inevitable in the future only if producers fail to police themselves properly. Expressing concern about the impact of animal activists on legislation, Curtis says:
As activists push for farm animal regulations, it's vital that those regulations be based on research about how animals think and feel. I'm very concerned about letting naive people decide what's best for animals, because we all tend to anthropomorphize -- when we look at an animal, we imagine ourselves in the animal's place. But what the animal itself thinks and feels is more important than what we imagine. That's really the crux of the issue (Martz, 1991).
Narveson (1986) is critical of Regan's (1983) statement that animals have "concepts" and that "perception, memory, desire, belief, self-consciousness, intention, a sense of the future" are among the leading attributes of the mental life of normal mammalian animals aged one year or more.
In the animal welfare movement, there is concern over the consciousness of suffering (Harrison 1964; Singer 1975, 1990; Mason and Singer 1980, 1990; Dawkins 1980; Fox 1980, 1984). Animal welfare activists suppose that animals may be conscious of suffering if either the structure of their nervous systems or their reactions to stimuli resemble those of humans. The reactions of farm animals to stimuli of pain or fear, which we at once recognize as resembling our own, are of three kinds (Baker 1948):
Barbara Orlans (1993) modified a chart by Katherine Morgan (1986) that provides an overview of classification categories of animal-related organizations. These preliminary classifications use attitudes toward animals, from exploitation to liberation, to label various types of organizations. The Orlans model, which uses five categories, is included. The Morgan model lists six categories of organizations, including the additional "animal control" designation.
Welfare: Definitions and Explanations
The elusive nature of defining the concept of animal "welfare" has been summarized by Ewbank (1988) as follows:
Many attempts have been made to define the term welfare as applied to animals. Two recent and widely used definitions are: 'Welfare on a general level is a state of complete mental and physical health where the animal is in harmony with its environment' (Hughes 1976), and 'The welfare of an individual is its state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment' (Broom 1986).
Both definitions refer in a general way to the balance which exists between the animal and its surroundings. They are not immediately helpful at the practical level in determining whether an animal is in fact enjoying a correct balance. For practical purposes, there is merit in simply replacing the word 'welfare' by the terms 'health' and 'well-being', both of which have strong positive components. Health is more than the mere absence of disease and well-being is more than the absence of discomfort and distress. This positive approach is to be welcomed because it inherently encourages high standards and it also plays into the natural pride of the good stockman in having contented, thriving and productive animals.
In the past, farm animal welfare has been considered primarily in relation to maximization of productivity. Fox (1984) states that there are no clear-cut correlations between productivity and animal well-being. He claims, however, that neglecting the welfare side of farm animal science by making productivity the sole criterion of sound husbandry practices can be counterproductive. When greater attention is given to the animals' physiological, emotional, and behavioral well-being, he states, the animal will be healthier and more productive. Fox apologizes for not offering a "variety of easily adoptable, tried and true, humane and more profitable alternatives." Still, he says, "These will come when all of us who are involved begin to think less in terms of productivity, short-term costs, and other narrow self-interests, and more in terms of the animals, their well-being, our treatment of them and our moral humane obligations toward them, science and ethics notwithstanding."
In addition to productivity, criteria that should be considered in assessing welfare or well-being are animal behavior, health, musculoskeletal soundness (lameness), reproduction, immune status, and physiological endpoints (Albright 1987 and Zimbelman 1991). It is vital both for the health and well-being of the animals involved and for the financial future of the farming industry that an increasing critical interest should be taken in the mixture of economic, scientific, ethical, aesthetic, and practical concepts that make up the complex subject of animal welfare, and that action should be taken on the new knowledge and ideas thus gained (Ewbank 1988).
Animal Welfare and Animal Rights
What is the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights? Animal welfare reflects people's concern for the humane treatment of animals and is regarded as more representative of the societal mainstream. It appears to have growing support from society at large. In contrast, proponents of animal rights hold that animals must not be exploited in any manner. In other words, the only interactions humans should have with animals are those that occur by happenstance or those that are initiated by an animal. Animal rights advocates believe that animals have basic rights -- many say, the same as people -- to be free from confinement, pain, suffering, use in experiments, and death for reason of consumption by other animals (including humans). Thus, animal rights advocates oppose the use of animals for food, for clothing, for entertainment, for medical research, for product testing, for seeing-eye dogs, and as pets. Currently, animal rights doctrine is essentially philosophical, anti-vivisectionist, vegetarian, pro-activist, moralistic, and urban-based (Albright 1986). The animal rights proponents believe that humans have evolved to a point where they can live without any animal products -- meat, milk, eggs, honey, leather, wool, fur, silk, byproducts, etc. These advocates offer a long list of concerns in support of the conclusion that neither medical researchers nor the cosmetic industry has the right to experiment on animals. They also conclude that the animal kingdom is exploited by hunters, zoos, circuses, rodeos, horse racing, horseback riding, the use of simians (small primates) to assist quadriplegics in wheelchairs, and by the keeping of animals as pets.
Kim Bartlett, editor of "The Animal's Agenda," a magazine published by the Animal Rights Network, Inc. in 1991, states:
It is indeed true that there is a fundamental theoretical difference between animal 'rights' and animal 'welfare,' as commonly defined: the animal 'rights' advocate would argue that animals have certain inalienable moral rights which humans should not violate; the animal 'welfarist,' however, accepts the notion that humans have a right to use animals, as long as suffering is reduced or eliminated. In theory, the animal 'welfarist' would work exclusively for the reform of cruel or abusive situations to alleviate animal suffering, while the animal 'rights' activist would focus on the abolition of cruel or abusive situations to eliminate animal suffering."
Animal rights advocates often express concern for welfare problems, but the eventual or hidden animal rights agenda is that of a purist. In one example, the goal is not larger cages/pens but the elimination of cages/pens. The concept of not using animals for any reason at all eliminates choices or discussion. Thus, the debate over how best to promote animal welfare shifts to a debate on animal rights versus human rights (Mathis 1991).
The case for animal rights has yet to be fully argued as a test case in a court of law. Under English common law, animals are considered to be personal property, and the animals themselves have no rights. In a U.S. case, the court decided that a dog "is something else" -- not just a thing, but occupying a special place somewhere between a person and a piece of personal property. The court ruled that the plaintiff had suffered mental anguish and despondency due to the defendant's wrongful destruction of the remains of her dog for whom she had planned an elaborate funeral; she was awarded damages beyond the market value of the dog (Kay Corso, Plaintiff, vs. Crawford Dog and Cat Hospital, Inc. Defendant. 97 Misc. 2nd 530: 415 N.Y.S. and 2nd 182 Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, March 22, 1979).
The Pros and Cons of Animal Rights
Salt (1892) preceded Singer (1975) by many years with a discussion of the rights of animals and possible lines of reform. However, sensitivity to issues involving animal rights intensified into a movement in the mid-1970s. The modern movement gained momentum with the publication of "Animal Liberation" by philosopher-vegetarian Peter Singer in 1975. The philosophy of Peter Singer, who many consider the "father" of the modern-day animal rights movement, is not a "rights" philosophy at all. "Animal Liberation," a seminal work, calls for humans to consider the "interests" of all sentient beings (Bartlett 1991).
Since 1975, many other departments of philosophy and religion have picked up the battle cry. Early Christian churches professed that animals do not have souls. Gradually, however, societies have admitted that, because animals experience pain, it is not too far-fetched to believe that they also have feelings. Until recently, human language, upright locomotion, use of the thumb, and the ability to solve complex problems were attributes humans cited to "keep animals in their place" (Albright 1986).
In his book, Singer denounced animal pain and suffering while supporting freedom for animals. He also defined a new form of prejudice called "speciesism." He defined speciesism as a prejudice or an attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one's own species and against the members of other species. To avoid speciesism and cruelty to animals, Singer espouses vegetarianism as a form of boycott as well as a lifestyle. The preface to the second edition of "Animal Liberation" (Singer 1990) states, "The strength of the case for Animal Liberation is its ethical commitment; we occupy the high moral ground and to abandon it is to play into the hands of those who oppose us." The book has had an enormous impact as a forceful call to arms for the general reader, especially on the subjects of "factory farming," the use of animals in medical research, and vegetarianism as morally and socially necessary. The question of animal rights and total abolition of the use of animals in science, animal agriculture, and commercial and sport hunting and trapping also have been the subject of published works by many other philosophers (Albright 1986).
Another proponent of animal rights is philosopher Tom Regan (Regan 1983, 1989; Regan and Singer 1976). Regan's book, "The Case for Animal Rights ," could very well be called "The Case for Mammal Rights," because his use of the term "animal" seems to refer to "a mentally normal mammal a year or more in age." Regan explores the implications of the use of animals for food, the hunting and trapping of animals, and the use of animals in science:
On this view, animal agriculture, as we know it, is unjust because it fails to treat farm animals with the respect they are due, treating them instead as renewable resources having value only relative to human interests. Animal agriculture, as we know it, is wrong, not only when farm animals are raised in close confinement in factory farms, but also when they are raised 'humanely,' since even in this case their lives are routinely brought to an untimely end because of human interests....The rights view will not be satisfied with anything less than the total dissolution of the animal industry as we know it.
In the last chapter, Regan sets forth his reasons for believing that vegetarianism is morally obligatory.
Elsewhere (1989), Regan has written: "I regard myself as an advocate of animal rights -- as a part of the animal rights movement. That movement, as I conceive it, is committed to a number of goals, including:
In a moralistic style of writing that Regan himself terms "disciplined passion," he concludes this article by stating that "the fate of animals is in our hands. God grant that we are equal to the task." Earlier (Regan and Singer 1976), Regan sowed seeds of doubt and suspicion about agricultural animal systems: "For the fact is that in ever-increasing numbers farm animals are being raised in incredibly crowded, unnatural environments according to what are called "intensive rearing methods." Some of the details and consequences of these methods are presented in Peter Singer's 1976 essay "Down on the Factory Farm." Singer reveals that animals raised by these methods lead lives characterized by "extreme deprivation, pain and frustration."
At a 1991 animal protection symposium put on by the National Alliance for Animals, a call for the animal rights movement to distance itself from animal "welfare" was voiced by two prominent animal rights speakers: Regan, of North Carolina State University, and Gary Francione of Rutgers University Law School. Though the style and substance of their oratory was markedly different, both Francione and Regan characterized animal welfare as the "enemy" of animal rights; argued that the animal rights movement is being co-opted by proponents of animal welfare; and encouraged listeners to return to a belief in the fundamental principles of the animal rights doctrine, as articulated by Regan.
To Francione and Regan, the goals of animal "welfare" not only differ from animal "rights," they contradict them. In the words of Francione, "What you do when you merely ameliorate the conditions of enslavement is that you perpetuate the enslavement. And that is totally inimical to the goal of abolition." Regan stated that "people who work to improve the corrupt system of exploitation fail to understand this truth, a simple truth: to make injustice seem better is to prolong injustice" (Bartlett 1991).
In an attempt to consider differing points of view, the book "Animal Rights: Opposing Viewpoints" (Rohr 1989) is recommended. It presents 32 articles debating the use of animals and whether they have rights. This book considers and debates five questions:
A helpful periodical bibliography and list of critical thinking activities (especially for students) are included with each chapter. The activities help students distinguish between fact and opinion, develop the ability to empathize, recognize deceptive arguments, recognize statements that are provable, and evaluate sources of information.
Drs. Rowan and Tannenbaum (1986) from Tufts University take a more moderate animal rights view. "We believe that animals have some rights and that we have important moral obligations regarding animals, but we also believe that at least some use of animals for human ends is legitimate." They conclude "...it would be most unfortunate if the concept (of animal rights) became equated with one particular political movement -- such as those seeking to abolish any humane use of animals. The concept of rights is both powerful and subtle and must be used with care and precision to explore our relationship with and responsibility to animals."
"The philosophical animal rights debate is a question of absolutes -- either you use animals or you don't," says Curtis. "The vast majority of people in the world today have decided to use animals because they want meat and other products of animal origin. It's an issue that's already been decided in our society. The more complex issue that remains open for discussion is animal welfare, and that isn't a matter of absolutes. Animal welfare concerns our moral responsibility to support the well-being of animals. This concern always sparks angry debates, because each and every human being is going to have a different opinion about where to draw the line" (Martz 1991).
Thompson (1992) has presented an overview of animal welfare and animal rights as they relate to biotechnology. First, criticisms of the use of animals in scientific research have led to reforms, as well as constraints, and increased costs on research practices in all areas of biological sciences. Second, some potential political allies for opposition to biotechnology may lead animal activists to target the products of recombinant DNA research. Third, the potential for using recombinant DNA techniques to develop new animal genomes (i.e. transgenic animals) may raise special questions for animal well-being. Finally, the public's perception of a lack of compassion for animal interests on the part of the research community may be a component of a vague, but extremely significant, antipathy toward science in general. Opposition to biotechnology may be cited, along with the perception of scientific dishonesty that has led to public disenchantment with science and scientists. If so, a willingness to understand and take seriously the issues of animal well-being and of public attitudes toward animals will be a component of responsible science in the coming decades.
A discussion of ethical issues on the care and use of animals commonly presumes a distinction between animal welfare and animal rights, but the distinction itself has become the source of much confusion. There are at least three ways to draw the distinction. Thompson (1992) refers to political, conceptual, and philosophical objectives. He includes an ethical analysis of each.
Vegetarianism is not new. The word "vegetarian" was invented in 19th century gland. Early Greek thinkers advocated a vegetarian diet in reaction to over-indulgence in animal flesh and wine. Excesses finally gave birth to the vegetarian movement in both Greece and Rome. Pythagoras (6th century B.C.) argued for vegetarianism on the basis of transmigration of souls between humans and animals. Plato (5th-4th centuries B.C.) drew sharp distinction between the rational soul of humans and appetitive soul of animals and claimed that superior rational humans naturally rule over inferior appetitive animals. He characterized animal existence as "beastly", sexually wanton, lawless, murderous, and warlike, but was sympathetic to vegetarianism as an ideal. Aristotle (4th century B.C.) claimed that animals with a lower type (sensitive) soul are meant to serve the purposes of humans, who have a higher type (rational) soul. This idea has heavily influenced to the present day a Western anthropocentric view of animals (Magel 1989).
The idea that it is morally wrong to eat animals also held sway for about 1,000 years among some of the most prominent ancient Greek philosophers. The idea died out in the Western world for almost 1,700 years. Since the 1970's, however, there has been a resurgence of interest in vegetarianism, marked by lively debates and the emergence of a substantial literature in the form of scholarly books and articles (Dombrowski 1984).
The Vegetarian Information Service, Inc. (formed in 1976) has stated that major training, mobilization, planning conferences, and animal rights actions are being held. Their major objective is to promote vegetarianism and animal rights.
Alex Hershaft (1982), founder of the Farm Animal Reform Movement, president of the Vegetarian Information Services, and former editor of the "Vegetarian Times," has written about the emerging structure of the vegetarian and animal rights movement in the United States as follows:
...Where 1970 had begun the shift of public consciousness toward life-enhancing ideologies and 1975 sparked an explosive growth of the vegetarian and animal rights movements, 1980 was the year for reassessment and consolidation. At the same time, animal rights loomed as a prime candidate to become the major cause of the 1980's, just as civil rights and women's rights had been in the 1960's and 1970's. In fact, most animal rights advocates were graduates of those movements and viewed animal rights as a logical extension of those ideologies. Most importantly, ethical vegetarians and animal rights advocates discovered that, despite their diverse origins, their ideologies were one and that they had much more in common with each other than with the traditional wings of their respective movements. The fresh idealism and excitement of animal rights advocates provided a fitting complement to the experience, resources, and credibility of ethical vegetarians. Clearly, the time had come for the two movements to merge and to make a major impact on the social and economic fabric of American society. It was precisely with this goal in mind that, in the summer of 1980, we formed Action for Life -- a framework for arranging conferences and seminars to train and mobilize animal rights and vegetarian activists.
Lehman and Hurnik (1980), Department of Philosophy and Department of Animal and Poultry Science, respectively, at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, prepared a paper entitled "On an Alleged Moral Basis of Vegetarianism." They formulated the argument (called the vegetarian argument) for the conclusion that it is wrong to kill animals for food. If this argument is acceptable, they said, then so is a parallel argument that it is wrong to kill plants for food. The parallel argument is not acceptable, and thus the vegetarian argument is not acceptable. Other basic premises of the vegetarian argument are discussed and challenged in their guest editorial.
Kathryn George (1990), Department of Philosophy at the University of Idaho, argued that the vegetarian ideal as a social goal for all would be wrong because it fails to consider the individual nutritional needs of humans. These needs vary throughout the stages of life with biological differences between the sexes and the eugenic effect of limiting the adaptability of the human species. She identified seven classes of individuals, comprising most of the earth's population, not required to be or become vegetarians.
There are many kinds of vegetarians. Hershaft has already alluded to ethical vegetarians. Does that mean that they are vegans and consume only plant sources? Some draw the line as lacto-ovo vegetarians (dairy products and eggs, respectively). There are pesco-vegetarians (fish), fruitarians ("nuterers") who consume only those plant sources that are ripe or mature (i.e. fruits, grains, and nuts).
Morris (1990) states eloquently that:
We humans, as evolved carnivores, have the right to live by our natural diet. Mankind is irreversibly adapted to a diet that contains meat as a major constituent and is no longer suited to a predominantly vegetable diet. Proof of this comes from those struggling peasant populations where meat is in short supply. Populations forced to suffer a low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet for prolonged periods eventually succumb to cirrhosis of the liver, pellagra, beriberi, kwashiorkor, and other serious deficiency diseases.
George Bernard Shaw, one of history's most famous vegetarians, is often cited as an example of a man who lived actively into his nineties through his special diet, but the truth is that he survived despite it, not because of it. Serious anemia, caused by his vegetarianism, was threatening to kill him at one stage and he could only be saved by accepting medication that included liver extracts. This made the leaders of the vegetarian movement furious and they savagely attacked the elderly playwright, apparently caring more for principles than for Shaw's continued survival. Shaw wrote a withering reply, in which he made the crucial point that the value of vegetarianism is greatly diminished by the fact that it is so difficult and expensive to do well, ending with the comment: 'The so-called simple life is beyond the means of the poor.'
For those who have not studied the problem this may be difficult to understand. Vegetables are cheaper than meat, but the problem is one of balancing the intake of vegetables in order to produce, by human cunning, the amino-acid balance so amply offered by every piece of meat. Different vegetables possess different essential amino acids, but not in the right combination: without the perfect combination of all of them, none of them works properly in the human digestive system. This means that, to produce a safe vegetarian meal, a delicate balance based on biochemical knowledge has to be achieved, employing just the right mixture of botanical elements. This requires patience and expertise and explains why it is that, in ignorant peasant communities, the unavoidable vegetable diet causes so many serious deficiency diseases. As things are at present, an efficient vegetarian diet is essentially a phenomenon of the affluent middle classes. By contrast, a crudely applied vegetarian diet for the masses remains a killer.
Vegetarians are quick to point out that this need not always be so: if advanced nutritional knowledge were applied on a global scale so that a carefully balanced plant diet could be mass-produced in starvation areas, there is hope that the terrible deficiencies caused by the absence of sufficient meat could be avoided. This is clearly a prospect for the future and an important one, since it seems that in any case there will never be enough meat for everyone.
There are additional difficulties, however, because certain crucial vitamins and minerals are missing from a purely botanical diet, even the most expertly balanced one. Clearly the vegetarian movement, despite its good intentions, is fighting against nature, and its unequal struggle will continue until that far-off day when our biochemists have eventually succeeded in creating a complete synthetic diet from basic chemicals for us all to eat.
If meat is necessary for nutritional reasons, it must be admitted that its consumption makes hypocrites of many of us. Modern citizens love their joints of meat and their steaks, but how many of them would be prepared to carry out the killing, the degutting and the butchering themselves? Isolation from farming and from hunting has made us squeamish. We live in an age of specialization, when matters of life and death are kept discreetly at a distance. If we had to do the killing, many more of us would resort to the vegetarian or vegan solution than do so already. Those who market our food are well aware of this, which is why so much meat today is displayed in shapeless cellophane packets which give no hint of its natural animal origins. It is abstract food for a generation that prefers not to associate the meat it eats with the animals from which it comes.
There is nothing shameful about killing animals solely as a source of food. What is shameful, however, is the manner in which we treat many of them before we kill them. We all have to die, both humans and non-humans, but neither we nor they need to live miserable lives. There is no excuse for inflicting pain, frustration or deprivation on any of our food animals at any stage in their lives. Death may be inevitable but cruelty is not. If we must eat meat, then we must ensure that the animals we kill for our food live the best possible lives before they die. Anything less is a betrayal of the Animal Contract.
Further scrutiny and scientific answers are needed in response to welfare questions being raised about such issues as antibiotics in animal feeds; hormone implants; pesticides in food production; the diet-health and nutrition controversy; food safety; feeding grain to farm animals versus hungry people; environmental issues (livestock grazing, methane production, manure management, deforestation, public lands, energy use, water use, etc.); genetic engineering and biotechnology (bovine and porcine somatotropin). Responses such as "Animal Agriculture: Myths and Facts" (Animal Industrp Found`tion, P O. Box 9522, Arlington, VA 22209) and "Myths and Facts About Beef Production" (National Cattlemen's Foundation, P.O. Box 3469, Englewood, CO 80155) have been formulated and distributed to interested persons.
Animal rights and animal welfare have biological, cultural, economic, social, philosophical, emotional, political, legal, and policy dimensions. Hundreds of organizations are active in some aspect of these issues. Viewpoints range in a continuum from animal rights advocates to livestock producers (Getz and Baker 1990).
The animal welfare issue is not going to go away. Continuing to cloud the issue is the subject of animal rights along with humane care and treatment, especially of laboratory (research) animals. The present-day animal rights movement has civil disobedience precedents, starting with Thoreau and continuing through Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Viet Nam protesters, and anti-abortion activists. Similar to the environmental movement, widely divergent differences about animal care and well-being seem to be headed toward regulations and legislation (Albright 1986).
Before 1991, 12 States had enacted legislation prohibiting individuals from entering an animal facility with intent to destroy property or injure animals. Since that time, other states have passed similar bills. States with legislation include Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Although each State's bill is somewhat different and legislation in some States does not include agricultural facilities, it is interesting to see how the momentum has shifted toward such legislation. Only a few years ago such action would have been viewed as unnecessary.
Legislative activity is not limited only to States. The Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 was signed on August 26, 1992, by President George Bush. Congressman Stenholm (D-TX) said in his introductory remarks: "Criminal terrorist activities will continue unless the full power of the legal system is used." The bill was sponsored in the Senate by Senator Heflin (D-AL). Need for such national legislation was brought to light when it was revealed that more than 100 acts of terrorism, vandalism (including animal liberation), and other illegal acts had been reported in the United States in recent years, yet only one conviction had resulted. Current laws do not adequately cover this type of illegal activity. (Johnson 1991, 1992, 1993; Kopperud 1991).
Geoffrey S. Becker, Specialist, Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Division, prepared a 43-page report for Representative Stenholm on State and Federal laws relating to the welfare of farm animals. In summary, the report states:
Animal protection activists in the United States are seeking modifications (or even curtailment) of many practices long considered acceptable and necessary to animal agriculture. Examples include rearing large numbers of cattle, hogs, and chickens in close confinement; performing surgical procedures such as castration, tail-docking, or beak-trimming; housing layer hens in cages; and isolating veal calves in crates.
Currently, no Federal law prescribes standards for on-farm handling and care of animals, although two statutes do address the humane transport and slaughter of livestock. All States have anti-cruelty laws, which can -- but do not always -- cover farm animals. Many States regulate the transport and slaughter of farm animals, but few if any address on-farm activities.
Recent surveys suggest that most people still support agricultural uses of animals (as do many animal protection groups), and they believe that farmers generally treat their animals humanely. However, many also appear to support some government regulation to insure humane treatment, the surveys suggest.
Animal agriculturists insist they are concerned about and understand their animals' welfare needs and would be economically foolish to ignore them. They express worry about misguided efforts by uninformed critics that could lead to the imposition of mandatory, unworkable regulations harmful to producers and animals alike. Producer education and voluntary guidelines are more effective ways of assuring animal welfare, they believe.
But many animal protection groups contend that producers' efforts fall short, in part because today's intensive farming systems perpetuate standard practices that may be harmful to animals' well-being. (The more radical animal 'rights' groups believe man has no right to use animals for any purpose.)
Conventional agricultural interests have always deployed strong scientific and economic arguments in defense of their industry. However, the 98 percent of the population no longer residing on farms holds an extremely wide range of moral and religious beliefs about man's relationship with other animals -- which ultimately could carry more weight in future policy decisions than traditional economic and scientific arguments (Becker 1992).
Abuse -- Obvious cruelty; striking or willfully harming an animal with a club or instrument of harm.
Ahimsa -- Doctrine of non-violence or non-killing (from Sanskrit a without, himsa injury); Hindu, Buddhist, and Jainist philosophy.
Animal husbandry -- The proper breeding, feeding and care of animals, especially farm animals. Some modern dictionaries substitute the word "science of" for "proper" in the definition. Unfortunately, the term "husbandry", fell from grace about 30 to 35 years ago. Universities substituted "science" for "husbandry" in the names of animal, dairy, and poultry departments. Position titles were changed to create "animal scientist." At the same time, an emphasis on basic research and an overt de-emphasis on husbandry-related issues were initiated. The trend continues.
Animal rights -- The concept that animals have rights that are equivalent to, or even supersede, those of humans; implies that animals should be used for no other purpose than for the benefit of the animals themselves.
Animal welfare -- The concept of using animals for human ends but minimizing pain, stress, suffering, and deprivation and enhancing the animals' well-being during their lifetimes.
Anthropomorphism -- Ascribing human traits to animals, gods, etc.
Confinement -- Imprisonment; restriction of freedom.
Cruel -- Having or showing indifference to or pleasure in another's suffering.
Deprivation -- Loss of desired thing; refers to implied cruelties such as limiting an animal's freedom or association with others of its kind.
Ethology -- The study of behavior of animals in the wild, under conditions of domestication, or in the laboratory for the purpose of confirming field observations. Emphasis is on the evolutionary perspective, particularly the adaptiveness and modification of behavior for the animal's natural environment, be it the wild, zoo, farm, laboratory, or home. This information aids in appraising animal health and welfare.
Liberation -- Setting free.
Neglect -- Denying a vital requirement such as food, water, or shelter to an animal under one's care.
Protect -- Keep safe, defend, or guard a person or thing from or against danger.
Speciesism -- A prejudice or bias toward the interests of members of one's own species and against the members of other species.
Vegetarian -- Persons who do not eat meat, poultry, and fish. Vegans are vegetarians who abstain from eating or using all animal products, including milk, cheese, other dairy items, eggs, wool, silk, or leather.
Vivisection -- Act of operating or experimenting on living animals for medical or scientific research.
1. Albright, J.L. 1986. Animal welfare and animal rights. Natl. Forum (Phi Kappa Phi J.) 66:34-37.
2. Albright, J.L. 1987. Dairy animal welfare: Current and needed research. J. Dairy Sci. 70:2711-2731.
3. Baker, J.R. 1948. The scientific basis of kindness to animals. Publ. by Universities Federation of Animal Welfare, Potters Bar, U.K., pp. 3-11.
4. Bartlett, K. 1991. A new fundamentalism. The Animal's Agenda 11(9):2.
5. Becker, G.S. 1992. Humane treatment of farm animals: Overview and selected issues. Congressional Research Service -- The Library of Congress. 92-412 ENR.
6. Brambell, F.W.R. 1965. Report of the technical committee to inquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. HMSO Cmnd. 2836, London.
7. Broom, D.M. 1986. Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary J. 142:524-526.
8. Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock. 1971. Code No. 1 Cattle, Code No. 2 Pigs, Code No. 3 Domestic Fowls, Code No. 4 Turkeys, (Code No. 5 Sheep was in December 1977). Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Welsh Office Agriculture Department, U.K.
9. Consortium. 1988. Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in agricultural research and teaching. Association Headquarters, 1111 N. Dunlap Ave., Savoy, IL 61874.
10. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1980. Food from animals: Quantity, quality and safety. Report No. 82.
11. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1981. Scientific aspects of the welfare of food animals. Report No. 91.
12. Curtis, S.E. and W.R. Stricklin. 1991. The importance of animal cognition in agricultural production systems. J. Animal Sci. 69:5001-5007.
13. Dawkins, Marian Stamp. 1980. Animal Suffering -- The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall, London.
14. Dawkins, M.S. 1990. From an animal's point of view: Motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13:1-9.
15. Dombrowski, Daniel A. 1984. The Philosophy of Vegetarianism. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.
16. Duncan, I.J.H. and J.C. Petherick. 1991. The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. J. Animal Sci. 69:5017-5022.
17. Duncan, Ian J.H. 1993. The science of animal well-being. USDA/NAL, Animal Welfare Information Center Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 1.
18. Ewbank, R. 1980. Behavior and behavior-related problems in farm animals. Paper presented at Symposium on Role of Animal Behavior in Agriculture at 72nd Annual Meeting of American Society of Animal Science, Ithaca, NY.
19. Ewbank, R. 1988. Animal welfare. In: Management and Welfare of Farm Animals-the UFAW Handbook, 3rd Edition. Bailliere Tindall, London.
20. Fox, M.W. 1980. Factory farming. The Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037. 38 pages.
21. Fox, M.W. 1984. Farm Animals -- Husbandry, Behavior and Veterinary Practice: Viewpoints of a Critic. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD.
22. George, Kathryn Paxton. 1990. So animal a human..., or the moral relevance of being an omnivore. J. Agric. Ethics 3(2):172-186.
23. Getz, W.R. and F.H. Baker. 1990. Educational methodology in dealing with animal rights and welfare in public service. J. Animal Sci. 68:3468-3474.
24. Harrison, Ruth. 1964. Animal Machines -- The New Factory Farming Industry. Vincent Stuart Ltd., London.
25. Hershaft, Alex. 1982. Emerging structure of the vegetarian and animal rights movement in the U.S. The Animal's Agenda 2(4): 19,22.
26. Hughes, B.D. 1976. Behavior as an index of welfare. In Proceedings 5th European Poultry Conference, Malta, pp. 1005-1012.
27. Johnson, H.R. 1991. The legislative front. In: Farm animals --No one has greater concern for the care of farm animals than the farmer who raises them. Animal Welfare Newsletter, American Farm Bureau Federation. No. 38, July 1.
28. Johnson, H.R. 1992. State legislators busy. Animal Welfare Newsletter, American Farm Bureau Federation. No. 42, July 20.
29. Johnson, H.R. 1993. Success at last! Animal Welfare Newsletter, American Farm Bureau Federation. No. 43, September 1.
30. Kopperud, S.L. 1991. Legislative update. Animal Industry Foundation Newsletter. Vol. 4(3):10. June 28.
31. Lehman, H.S. and J.F. Hurnik. 1980. On an alleged moral basis of vegetarianism. Appl. Animal Ethol. 6:205-209.
32. Magel, C.R. 1989. Keyguide to Information Sources in Animal Rights. McFarland & Co., Inc. Publ. Jefferson, NC.
33. Martz, Eston. 1991. If we could talk to the animals (Interview with Stan Curtis). Penn State Agriculture, Spring/Summer. p. 18-21.
34. Mason, J. and P. Singer. 1980. Animal Factories. Crown Publishers, Inc. New York, NY.
35. Mason, J. and P. Singer. 1990. Animal Factories. 2nd Edition. Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, NY.
36. Mathis, Jim. 1991. Putting people first -- "Animals don't have rights". Poultry Times 38(14):4. July 15.
37. Mench, Joy A. and Ari Van Tienhoven. 1986. Farm animal welfare. American Scientist 74:598-603.
38. Morris, Desmond. 1990. Fair game? In: The Animal Contract --Sharing the Planet. Warner Books, Inc., New York, NY.
39. Narveson, Jan. 1986/87. A case against animal rights. Advances in Animal Welfare Science. Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. p. 191-204.
40. Orlans, F. Barbara. 1993. Attitudes towards animals. In: LabAnimal, April. Address: Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057. Also see: Katherine B. Morgan, An overview of animal-related organizations, with some guidelines for recognizing patterns. Community Animal Control, PO Box 22599, Kansas City, MO 64113.
41. Regan, Tom. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, Berkeley.
42. Regan, Tom. 1989. The case for animal rights. The Animals' Voice 2(5):10-16. Also In: Defense of Animals, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England.
43. Regan, Tom and Peter Singer (Editors). 1976. Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
44. Rohr, Janelle, 1989. Animal Rights -- Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc., San Diego, CA.
45. Rowan, Andrew and Jerrold Tannenbaum. 1986. Animal rights. Natl. Forum (Phi Kappa Phi J.) 66:30-33.
46. Salt, Henry S. 1892. Animals' Rights -- Considered in Relation to Social Progress. Published in 1980 by Society for Animal Rights, Inc. Clarks Summitt, PA. (Preface by Peter Singer).
47. Schwartz, A. 1990. The politics of formula-fed veal calf production. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 196:1578-1586.
48. Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal Liberation -- A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York Review Book, New York, NY.
49. Singer, Peter. 1976. Down on the Factory Farm. In: Animal Rights and Human Obligations, by Tom Regan and Peter Singer (Editors). Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
50. Singer, Peter. 1990. Animal Liberation. Second Edition. New York Review Book, New York, NY.
51. Thompson, P.B. 1992. Animal welfare and animal rights: An overview. Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics Discussion Paper 92-1, Texas A & M Univ., College Station, TX.
52. Veal Calf Protection Act. 1989. Joint hearing before the subcommittee on livestock, dairy and poultry. 101st Congress, First Session, on H.R. 84. Serial No. 101-18. 488 pp.
53. Zimbelman, R.G. 1991. Animal well-being: One scientist's point of view. The Professional Animal Scientist 7:9-12.
SUPPLEMENTAL READING
1. Animal Care Series: Beef Care Practices. 1992. Beef and Range Workgroup, University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA 95616.
2. Animal Care Series: Dairy Care Practices. 1993. Dairy Workgroup, University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA 95616.
3. Animal Care Series: Egg-Type Layer Flock Care Practices. 1995. California Poultry Workgroup, University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA 95616.
4. Animal Care Series: Sheep Care Practices. 1992. Sheep Workgroup, University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA 95616.
5. Animal Care Series: Swine Care Practices. 1991. California Pork Industry Group. University of California Cooperative Extension, CA 95616.
6. Animal Care Series: Turkey Care Practices. 1995. California Poultry Workgroup, University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA 95616.
7. Animal Welfare Instructional Materials. 1995. The National Council for Agricultural Education and the National FFA Foundation, P.O. Box 45205, Madison, WI 53744-5205.
8. The Care and Treatment of Professional Rodeo Livestock. 1989. Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, 101 Pro Rodeo Dr., Colorado Springs, Co. 80919.
9. Guide for the Care and Production of Veal Calves. 1994. American Veal Association, Inc., 4714 Orchard Street, Harrisburg, PA 17109-1739.
10. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching. 1988. Division of Agriculture, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 1 Dupont Circle, NW., Suite 710, Washington, DC 20036-1191. For future revisions, contact: Federation of American Societies of Food Animal Sciences, 1111 N. Dunlap Ave., Savoy, IL 61874.
11. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 1996. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, Commission of Life Sciences, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC 20055.
12. A Guide for 4-H Animal Care. 1990. Warner, R.J. and N.D. Long. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
13. Guidelines for the Care and Use of Animals in Production Agriculture. 1991. Nebraska Food Animal Care Coalition. Nebraska Department of Agriculture and 14 organizations, Lincoln, NE 68501.
14. Healthy, Productive Practices of the U. S. Egg Industry. 1991. United Egg Producers (UEP), 3951 Snapfinger Pkwy., Suite 580, Decatur, GA 30035.
15. HSUS Recommended Standards for Raising Livestock and Poultry. 1991. The Humane Society of the United States, 2010 "L" Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037.
16. Livestock Handling Guide. 1988. Livestock Conservation Institute, 1910 Lyda Drive, Bowling Green, KY 42104-5809.
17. Livestock Trucking Guide. 1988. Livestock Conservation Institute, 1910 Lyda Drive, Bowling Green, KY 42104-5809.
18. Proper Handling Technique for Non-Ambulatory Animals. 1992. Livestock Conservation Institute, 1910 Lyda Drive, Bowling Green, KY 42104-5809.
19. Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines for Meat Packers. 1991. American Meat Institute, P. O. Box 3556, Washington, D.C. 20007.
20. Recommended Guidelines of Husbandry Practices for Laying Chickens. 1988. United Egg Producers (UEP), Washington Office, Suite 410, 2501 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.
21. Reference Guide for the Caring of Dairy Animals, and On-Farm Evaluation Guide. 1994. Agri-Education, Inc., 801 Shakespeare, Stratford, IA 50249.
22. Special-Fed Veal Production Guide. 1991. Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, 152 Riley-Robb Hall, Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY 14853-5701.
23. Swine Care Handbook. 1996. National Pork Producers Council, P.O. Box 10383, Des Moines, IA 50306.
24. Veal Calf Welfare and Production Guidelines. Animal welfare positions, recommendations and background information. American Veterinary Medical Association, 930 N. Meacham Rd., Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360.
25. The Veterinarian's Role in Animal Welfare. 1993. American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), 930 N. Meacham Rd., Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360.
1. Battaglia, R.A. and V.B. Mayrose. 1981. Handbook of Livestock Management Techniques. Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN.
2. Baumgardt, B.R., and Glen H. Gray (editors). 1993. Food Animal Well-Being Conference Proceedings and Deliberations. United States Department of Agriculture and Purdue University Office of Agricultural Research Programs, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
3. Broom, D.M. and K.G. Johnson. 1994. Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.
4. Ewbank R. (editor). 1988. Management and Welfare of Farm Animals: The UFAW Handbook. (3rd Edition). Bailliere Tindall, London.
5. Fraser A.F. and D.M. Broom. 1990. Farm Animal Behavior and Welfare. [3rd Edition]. Bailliere Tindall, London.
6. Grandin, T. (editor). 1993. Livestock Handling and Transport. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.
1. Animal Welfare: Implications for Agricultural Research (Interview of Dr. Joy Mench). 1990. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.
2. Farm Animal Behavioral Research. 1990. (Seminar by Dr. Stanley Curtis, June 8). National Program Staff, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 20705.
3. The Down Side of Livestock Marketing. 1991. Farm Sanctuary, Watkins Glen, NY 14891.
4. Livestock in Transit -- Handle With Care. 1989. Humane Slaughter Association, Potters Bar, Herts., U.K. EN6 3PA.
5. Modern Veal Production. 1987. American Veal Association, 4714 Orchard Street, Harrisburg, PA 17109-1739.
6. The Other Side of the Fence. 1988. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Varied Directions, Inc., Camden, ME 04843.
7. Our Side of the Fence. 1989. National Cattleman's Beef Association, Englewood, CO 80155.
8. Understanding Farm Animal Behavior. 1986. (Drs. William Hall and William Rempel discuss farm animal behavior.) University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55108.
9. Veal Farming Is Special. 1983. American Farm Bureau Federation, 225 Touhy Ave., Park Ridge, IL 60068.
10. Youth and Dairy Cattle -- A Safe Partnership. 1994. Livestock Conservation Institute, Bowling Green, KY 42104-5809.
Many of the above videos are available from:
Animal Welfare Information Center
USDA, National Agricultural Library
Document Delivery Services Branch, 6th Floor
10301 Baltimore Blvd.
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351.
Videos (treatment of livestock)
1. Animal Agriculture Myths and Facts. 1990. Animal Industry Foundation, P.O. Box 9522, Arlington, VA 22209-0522.
2. Animal Rights/Animal Welfare. 1990. National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA 50306.
3. Animal Welfare: The Farmer's Story. 1981. American Farm Bureau Federation, 225 Touhy Ave., Park Ridge, IL 60068.
4. Beef Cattle Handling and Transportation. 1988. Livestock Conservation Institute, 1910 Lyda Drive, Bowling Green, KY 42104-5809.
5. Understanding Dairy Cattle Behavior To Improve Handling and Production. 1992. Livestock Conservation Institute, 1910 Lyda Drive, Bowling Green, KY 42104-5809.
6. Normal and Abnormal Behavior in Domestic Livestock Used for Research. 1993. USDA/NAL Animal Welfare Information Center, 10301 Baltimore Blvd., Beltsville, MD 20705-2351.
7. Swine Handling and Transportation. 1989. Livestock Conservation Institute, 1910 Lyda Drive, Bowling Green, KY 42104-5809.
8. What's the Beef? 1991. Instructional Materials Service, Mail Stop 2588, College Station, TX 77843-2588.
9. The Heart of the Matter. 1993. Instructional Materials Service, Mail Stop 2588, College Station, TX 77843-2588.
10. A Question of Ethics. 1994. Instructional Materials Service, Mail Stop 2588, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843-2588.
11. A Step Beyond: A Question of Ethics. 1995. Instructional Materials Service, Mail Stop 2588, College Station, TX 77843-2588.
12. A Line in the Sand. 1996. Instructional Materials Service, Mail Stop 2588, College Station, TX 77843-2588.
Note: The five videos (8-12) above are the Dr. Jeff Goodwin Series of Educational Videos.
1. Barnett, J.L. and G.O. Hutson. 1987. Objective assessment of welfare in the pig: Contributions from physiology and behavior. In: Manipulating Pig Production, Ed. APSA Committee. (Australian Pig Science Association: Werribee, Victoria.)
2. Carman, Russ. 1990. The Illusions of Animal Rights. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
3. Comstock, Gary (editor). 1994. Might morality require veganism? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7(1):1-124.
4. Concannon, P.W. 1990. Animal research, animal rights, animal legislation. Publ. by Society for the Study of Reproduction, Champaign, IL.
5. Conniff, Richard. 1990. Fuzzy-wuzzy thinking about animal rights. Audubon (Journal of the National Audubon Society) November.
6. Cross, H. Russell and Floyd M. Byers (editors). 1990. Current issues in food production: A perspective on beef as a component in diets for Americans -- a scientific response to John Robbin's "Diet for a New America". Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843.
7. Curtis, S.E. 1987. Animal well-being and animal care. In: Farm Animal Behavior -- Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. Vol. 3(2):369-382.
8. Darwin, Charles. 1873. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Appleton and Co., New York, NY.
9. Fox, M.W. 1990. Inhumane Society -- the American Way of Exploiting Animals. St. Martins Press, New York, NY.
10. Frey, R.G. 1983. Rights, Killing and Suffering. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England.
11. Griffin, Donald R. 1992. Animal Minds. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
12. Guither, Harold D. and Michelle Van Buer. 1991. The economics and politics of animal welfare and animal rights: the implications for farm management and marketing economists. Farm Management-Marketing Extension Workshop, St. Louis, Missouri, May 7-9.
13. Handling the 20 toughest animal rights assertions. American Farm Bureau Federation, 225 Touhy Ave., Park Ridge, IL 60068.
14. Hardy, D.T. 1990. America's new extremists: What you need to know about the animal rights movement. Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, D.C.
15. Hargrove, Eugene C. (editor). 1992. The Animal Rights/Environmental Ethics Debate. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
16. Hendee, W.R. and J.M. Loeb. 1990. By responding quickly and wisely, universities can avoid the trap set by animal-rights groups. Chronicle of Higher Education, May 30.
17. Howard, Walter E. 1990. Animal Rights vs. Nature. Published by the author. Davis, CA.
18. Hurnik, J.F., A.B. Webster, and P.B. Siegel. 1995. Dictionary of Farm Animal Behavior (2nd Ed.). Iowa State University, Ames, IA
19. Huxley, Elspeth. 1965. Brave New Victuals -- An Inquiry Into Modern Food Production. Chatto & Windus, London.
20. Kilgour, Ron and Clive Dalton. 1984. Livestock Behavior -- A Practical Guide. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
21. Lappe, Francis Moore. 1971. Diet for a Small Planet. Ballantine Books, New York, NY.
22. Leavitt, Emily Stewart and Diane Halverson. 1990. The evolution of anti-cruelty laws in the United States. In: Animals and Their Legal Rights -- a Survey of American Laws From 1641-1990, 4th edition. Animal Welfare Institute, P.O. Box 3650, Washington D.C. 20007.
23. Loeper, John J. 1991. Crusade for Kindness -- Henry Bergh and the ASPCA. Atheneum, New York, NY.
24. Marquardt, Kathleen. 1993. Animal Scam -- the Beastly Abuse of Human Rights. Regnery Gateway, Inc., Washington, DC.
25. McCabe, Katie. 1990. Beyond cruelty -- The animal rights movement has little concern for the humane treatment of animals. It wants to end Man's use of animals altogether --including those uses that are saving human lives. The Washingtonian 25(5):73-77, 185-195. Also: Letters -- Beyond cruelty 25 (8):18,25,32.
26. McMillan, Karen. 1990. "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Background -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Ingrid Newkirk; Humane Society of the U.S., Michael Fox; American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, John Kullberg; Farm Animal Reform Movement, Alex Hershaft; Farm Sanctuary, Lori Bauston; Food Animal Concerns Trust, Robert Brown; Animal Welfare Institute, Diane Halverson; and Humane Farming Association, Bradley Miller. Beef Today, March. p. 18-22.
27. Mendl, Michael. 1991. Some problems with the concept of a cut-off point for determining when an animal's welfare is at risk. Appl. Animal Beh. Sci., 31:139-146.
28. Mighetto, Lisa. 1991. Wild Animals and American Environmental Ethics. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
29. Moss, Roy (editor). 1992. Livestock Health and Welfare. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
30. Newkirk, Ingrid. 1990. Save the Animals -- 101 Easy Things You Can Do. Warner Books, Inc. New York, NY.
31. Nicoll, C.S. and S.M. Russell. 1991. Mozart, Alexander the Great and the animal rights/liberation philosophy. Fed. Am. Soc. Exptl. Biol. J. 5:2888-2892.
32. Ojeda, Sergio. 1990. Editorial: Animal rights and the inertia of the scientific community. Endocrinology 126(2):677-679.
33. Patterson, David and Richard Ryder (editors). 1979. Animal Rights -- A Symposium. Centaur Press, Ltd., London, UK.
34. Phillips, M.T. and J.A. Sechzer. 1989. Animal Research and Ethical Conflict -- An Analysis of the Scientific Literature: 1966-1986. Springer-Verlag. New York, NY.
35. Rifkin, Jeremy. 1992. Beyond Beef -- The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture. Dutton, New York, NY.
36. Ristau, Carolyn A. (editor). Cognitive Ethology -- The Minds of Other Animals. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
37. Robbins, John. 1987. Diet for a New America. Stillpoint Publishing, Walpole, NH.
38. Rollin, B.E. 1995. Farm Animal Welfare -- Social, Bioethical, and Research Issues. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
39. Ruesch, Hans. 1978. Slaughter of the Innocent. Bantam Books, Inc., New York, NY.
40. Rushen, Jeffery. 1994. The welfare of veal calves: a review of the scientific evidence. The Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
41. Sainsbury, David. 1986. Farm Animal Welfare -- Cattle, Pigs and Poultry. Collins, London, UK.
42. Serpell, James. 1986. In the Company of Animals. Basil Blackwell Ltd., Oxford, UK.
43. Sewell, Anna. 1877. Black Beauty: The Autobiography of a Horse. The John Winston Co., Philadelphia, PA.
44. Shurland, Elizabeth. 1990. The politics of farm animal welfare -- The Massachusetts 1988 debate on initiative petition 3: should farm animal husbandry standards be set by the State. Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy Report No. 7, North Grafton, MA.
45. Sinclair, Upton. 1906. The Jungle. A Signet Classic (New American Library, New York, NY. 1980).
46. Singer, Peter (editor). 1985. In Defense of Animals. Harper and Row Publ., New York, NY.
47. Strand, Rod and Patti. 1993. The Hijacking of the Humane Movement. Doral Publishing, Wilsonville, OR.
48. Walker, Stephen. 1983. Animal Thought. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston, MA.
49. Woods, W.R. (editor). 1982. Proceedings of the Symposium on Management of Food Producing Animals. Volumes 1 and 2. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
| Return to Animal Welfare Issues | Return to Top |
Last Modified: October 19, 2004