PHI 103 Week 1 - Assignment

Phi 103 Informal Logic Essay

Dec 23, 2012 2186 Words  9 Pages

Factory Farming and the Welfare of Animals PHI 103 Informal Logic Factory Farming and the Welfare of Animals Even though higher yields are met for demand and human consumption, factory farming is cruel to animals due to the fact animals are often subject to harsh living conditions, more susceptible to diseases and injuries and are treated inhumanely during the slaughtering process. Unfortunately, with an increase in human population worldwide, the strain on farmers to meet the demand increases as well. This in turn causes more animals to be subject to this cruelty. In the U.S., the concept of factory farms primarily involving animals such as pigs, cattle and chicken began in the 1920’s as a way to increase efficiencies by capturing the processes used by the industrial factories. Fogelson states, “during the 1920’s, industrial farming concepts found their way onto real farms in America “, (2003). This practice, also known as intensive livestock production, forces animals to be subjected to harsh living conditions while they are indoors and confined to crowded spaces and less sanitary environments. For instance, chickens are normally confined to cages inside giant warehouses along with thousands of other chickens. As they are under confinement and fed a diet intended to increase body weight at a rapid pace, their movements are hindered. D’Silva states,” the birds spend more time lying down, resting and sleeping. This means they are lying on the litter floor of the broiler shed, which probably houses approximately 20,000 chickens. Over the 6-week rearing period, this floor becomes increasingly filthy with excreta and the buildup of ammonia “, (2006). The fact that these living conditions are acceptable practices during the lifecycle of chickens, also referred to as broilers, overcrowding sometimes leading to death is an unfortunate reality. Much like chicken, pigs and cattle are also forced to live in harsh conditions and environments while being raised for slaughter. Calves, specifically raised for the popular meat known as veal, are often individually confined and allowed limited movements starting at birth. D’Silva states, “ the calves are unable, for most of the rearing period, to turn around and are only able to stand up, lie down, and take a couple of steps forward or backwards “, (2006). Similarly, pigs are also kept individually confined within concrete and/or metal barred crates. This confinement includes pregnant pigs, or sows, as well. Little comfort or consideration for different living conditions is given to the sows as they carry their young which hinders their natural instinct to nest. D’Silva points out, “the sow spends most of her 16.5-week pregnancy in the individual stall, and is unable to turn round throughout that time. She lies on a concrete and slatted floor with no straw or other bedding material for comfort “, (2006). Needless to say, these harsh conditions prevent and frustrate normal instinctual behaviors for all three of these farm animals. The quality of life for these animals is hardly taken into account when being raised as “production units” and leaves them more susceptible to sickness and disease. Gaining higher yields and profits have brought about crowded living quarters, feeding techniques and hormone treatments that cause factory farm animals to be more susceptible to sickness and disease. In the case of chickens, overcrowding in cages and warehouses alone means birds do not have access to sanitary conditions and fresh air allowing for the transmission of disease causing bacteria and viruses to easily spread. In recent years, Avian Flu strains have been a major concern among health organizations. Collins points out, “animals are packed together in a closed environment. As the days progress, birds end up standing on a cake of feces, feathers and sawdust, in a dusty warm atmosphere – an environment perfect for the transmission of contagious disease “, (2007). These susceptible conditions are also compounded by the fact that weakened and compromised immune systems are normally evident in most factory farmed animals. This is due in part by the previous statement to get higher yields out every animal raised. Cattle, chickens and pigs alike are all subject to certain fattening diets, modern breeding techniques and growth hormone treatments. These forced practices have very adverse, life altering and threatening affects that lead farmers to use antibiotics in order to keep diseases at bay. The Committee on Drug Use in Food Animals states, “doses are used when pathogens are known to be present in the environment or when animals encounter a high stress situation and are more susceptible to pathogens “, (1999, p. 28). It is important to point out that the use of growth hormones and antibiotics dramatically increases body mass, drastically shortens the lifespan of animals such as cattle and is being detected in food for human consumption. Farming practices like the use of growth hormones in cattle has created a new dilemma when considering welfare and health of factory farm animals. Moving even beyond the farm to the actual dinner plate, the effect consuming factory farm raised animals is still under debate but the fact still remains that the animals display compromising health issues. For instance, dairy cattle are given a growth hormone called BST, or bovine somatotropin, is given to dairy cattle during lactation cycles to sustain milk production. The fact that cattle are producing more milk by administering a naturally occurring hormone is not really the issue but the side effects due to the added hormone causes concern for the cattle’s overall health and welfare. D’Silva reports, “BST can and often does cause significant tender and long lasting swellings on the injection site. It doubles the length of the period of catabolic stress experienced by lactating cows after calving. It will result in mastitis cases which would not otherwise have occurred “, (1998). Evidence that BST contributes to increased mastitis cases, a painful inflammation of the udder, shows how unnecessary suffering caused by the hormone treatment adds to the poor health conditions dairy cows endure. Because of this, antibiotics have to also be used to treat the infected cattle and the duration can be long lasting. Other notable side effects experienced by dairy cattle due to the use BST are lameness, metabolic diseases, infertility, shortened lifespan and high mortality rates. Another concern when understanding the cruelty that animals are subjected to on factory farms is due to the inhumane treatment chickens, pigs and cows endure while in confinements, transportation to slaughter houses and the actual slaughtering process. Due to living conditions discussed previously, chickens and pigs specifically must suffer through industry practices that reduce the risk of the animals injuring each other. Most chickens, due to overcrowding, are put through a process where their beaks are cut off during when they are a couple of days old. D’Silva explains, “ since the tip of the beak is well supplied with blood vessels and nerve endings, cutting it off with a hot metal guillotine has been shown to cause both immediate and enduring pain “, (2006). Pigs are also subjected to similarly harsh treatments while in captivity. Due to injuries caused from biting, pigs normally have their tails removed at the infancy stage of life. D’Silva explains, “pigs are often tail docked in infancy; in addition, their canines and incisors are often cut or ground down “, (2006). This inhumane and unnecessary treatment is only the beginning of a process of physical cruelty that continues as the animals are prepared for transportation to slaughter houses. After surviving harsh living conditions, mistreatment and mutilation, most farm raised animals begin another treacherous chain of events while being transported to the slaughterhouse. Brown explains, “Every year approximately three million animals – many of them chickens – are dead on arrival at Canadian slaughter plants. Many more millions arrived injured and sick “, (2011, p.23-26). Transporting animals leads to trauma, injury and death. An apparent lack of concern for the animals’ well being while loading, transporting and unloading is an alarming and major concern. It is such a concern that legislation has been drafted in many countries trying to minimize harsh treatment and create guidelines for transporters. Certain conditions like the type and size of an animal, type of vehicle, weather and road conditions are important factors that lend themselves to the overall journey. Broom explains, “the methods used during handling, loading and unloading can have a great effect on animal welfare. The quality of driving can result in very few problems for the animals or in poor welfare because of difficulty in maintaining balance, motion sickness, injury, etc. The actual physical conditions such as temperature and humidity may change during a journey and require action on the part of the person responsible for the animals “, (2008, p. 162). Upon arriving to the slaughterhouse, the final stage of the animals’ life can result in worst treatment they have experienced up to this point. The slaughtering process for most farm animals is intended to be as humane as possible and has many rules and legislation worldwide to help ensure humane treatment but noticeable suffering is still apparent and occurring. Currently, there is a two stage process that is performed in order to kill the animals by stunning and rendering the animals unconscious and then sticking, or cutting the animal’s throat. The problem is the animals can and do regain consciousness leading to suffering during the slaughtering process. Anderson states, “death is caused by loss of blood following sticking. This kind of stunning is called (in the case of electrical stunning) head-only stunning. Inherent within it is that it is irreversible, i.e. animals may regain consciousness before death occurs which will result in very considerable suffering “, (1993). It is worth noting that this process is normally performed on larger animals like pigs and cattle but it is still disturbing to think that the possibility to be conscious during the slaughtering remains. Farmers and industry are able to meet consumer demands by incorporating modern processes and techniques thus justifying factory farming. The need to get higher yields while keeping costs low helps farmers meet their daily quotas so utilizing BST hormone treatments make sense due to the fact that lactation in dairy cattle only lasts a period of 6 to 8 weeks. D’Silva states, “ The average dairy cow now produces more than 6695 liters of milk per year, approximately 20% more than her counterpart from just 10 years ago “, (2006). This significant increase in milk production allows farmers to meet the growing demand without necessarily having to increase the size of his herd. Fogelson explains, “the united states has become great industrially through mass production, which facilitates elimination of waste and lowering of overhead costs. Large scale organization in the business has effected tremendous economies with what they want when they want it”, (2003, p. 108). The significance is that farmers are able to keep costs low for consumers. The biggest issue with this stance is that it completely disregards animals as living beings that have the right to exist and live a thriving existence. Higher yields, when it comes to milk and egg production and/or the animals being used for meat, means that big agri-business only views animals as products. Brown states, “animals are treated as “production units”, with no regard for their basic individual needs, which are subordinate to goals of producing the greatest number of animals in the shortest time “, (2011). Continuing to support this mindset can have greater costs associated with it when considering the environmental and nutritional values associated with factory farms. Just because farmers can utilize modern techniques and practices to squeeze every ounce of monetary gain out of every animal does not mean he or she should. Indeed, factory farming can lead to higher yields that benefit farmers and the market but overlooking the cruelty and mistreatment of animals cannot be ignored, Hopefully as research and exposure to such cruelty is surfaced, consumer demands for animal welfare and humane treatment will change the mindset of the farmers and ultimately the industry. References Brown, S. (2011). Do They Not Bleed? Canadian Dimension; Jul/Aug2011, Vol. 45 Issue 4, p23-26, (Article) Committee on Drug Use in Farm Animals Panel on Animal Health National Research Council. (1999). Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/docDetail.action?docID=10046904 Cussen, M.C. & Garces, V. (2008). Long Distance Transport and Welfare on Farm Animals. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/docDetail.action?docID=10222001&p00=animal%20cruelty D’Silva, J. (2006). Adverse Impact of Industrial Animal Agriculture on the Health and Welfare of Farmed Animals. Integrative Zoology 2006; 1: 53-58 (Essay) D’Silva, J. (1998). BST – A Distressing Product. Retrieved from http://www.ciwf.org.uk/ Fogelson, R. M. (2003). Every Farm a Factory: The Industrial Ideal in American Agriculture. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/docDetail.action?docID=10167891 Pickett, H. (2008). The Impact of Selection for High Milk Yield on the Health and Welfare of Dairy Cattle. Retrieved from http://www.ciwf.org.uk/ Stevenson, P. (1993). The Welfare of Pigs, Cattle and Sheep at Slaughter. Retrieved from http://www.ciwf.org.uk/