mon 1.3 webster, john plenary

7/31/2019 Mon 1.3 Webster, John PLENARY

1/11

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture.Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.1

HUSBANDRY REGAINED: FUTURES FOR ANIMALS IN SUSTAINABLEAGRICULTURE

John WebsterProfessor Emeritus, University of Bristol,

Old Sock Cottage, Mudford Sock, Yeovil BA22 8EA, [email protected]

Animal farming is under pressure from many sides on grounds of diet andhuman health, animal welfare, overconsumption of valuable resources, socialinequalities and environmental sustainability. Much of this criticism is justifiedyet animal farming wont just quietly fade away, not least because it cant.Pastoral systems occupy 26% of ice-free land on the planet. A further 33% ofcropped land goes to animal feed. Thus directly or indirectly well in excess of50% of managed land is devoted to animal agriculture (1). Moreover, despiteall the above concerns world-wide consumption of meat, milk and eggs is

predicted to rise by about 70% in the next 10 years.

A rational analysis of modern, largely intensive animal husbandry reveals bothpros and cons. The pros include affordable food, year-round availability, widechoice and improved appearance. The evidence on taste is less convincing.The cons include reduced value and respect for individual farm animals, wildlife,loss of social structure in the rural environment and unsustainability. It has beencalculated that by 2030, if Chinas people are consuming at the same rate asAmericans they will eat 2/3rds of the entire global harvest and burn 100Mbarrels of oil a day, or 125% of current world output.

My aim is to present a constructive exploration of the future role of animalhusbandry in sustainable agriculture. To this end, we need first to examine howwe got to where we are today. Peasant farming was poor but sustainablebecause land use was complementary. Cows, sheep, horses gathered foodthat was unavailable to us, from land that we didnt own. Pigs and poultryscavenged food we dropped or rejected. However nobody who worked the landgot rich. The first agricultural revolution came about as a result of privateownership of formerly common land. The new gentry may have stolen the landfrom the peasants but the system generated wealth and was sustainableecologically largely because it used renewable resources available on site.

The driving factors for the second agricultural revolution, the modern factoryfarm are illustrated in Fig. 1. The biggest change has been a massive increasein non-farm inputs of feed, power and financial subsidies (especially in Europe).This has greatly increased food production and income (though not necessarilyprofit) for the famers. It has also contributed (although not inevitably) to newproblems of pollution and animal welfare. Intensification of housing occurredbecause it became cheaper to truck the feed to the animals and truck away themanure than to let the animals gather the feed and fertilise the land forthemselves.


2/11


The process was also made possible through the discovery and liberal use ofantibiotics that made it possible to sustain high productivity in conditions ofcrowding and squalor. Observed within the historical context of sustainableagriculture, the intensive livestock farm has had a very short life and it is alreadysick, due to problems of animal health and welfare, public health and pollution.

We cannot dodge the conclusion that it is unsustainable in its present form.

Fig 1.The genealogy of the modern factory farm (2)

Audits of agricultureNearly all justification and criticism of animal production systems is based onlimited premises, usually selected to reinforce individual prejudice. In thissection I examine various aspects of animal agriculture from differentperspectives and show that the answers are highly dependent on how youformulate the questions.

One of the commonest criticisms of animal farming is that it wastes food andland that could be better used to grow crops directly for human consumption. Atfirst sight this is self-evident. It is necessary however to distinguish betweencompetitive and complementary sources of animal feed (e.g. cereals andforages). Table 1 examines the efficiency of conversion of feed energy foranimals to food energy for humans.

Measured in terms of total input of feed energy, intensive egg and porkproduction are far more efficient than beef production (33, 19 and 8%respectively).


3/11


Measured in terms of efficiency of conversion of competitive feeds, theefficiencies become 35, 24 and 24%, i.e. beef matches pork. Dairy productionwhen approximately 65% of the diet is complementary is by far the mostefficient by both accounts: 42% efficient with respect to total feed energy, 139%in terms of competitive feed energy. In other words the dairy cow produces far

more high-quality food for human use than she consumes.

Table 1 Efficiency of energy conversion in meat, milk and egg production.Output is defined by energy in food for humans; inputs are described in terms oftotal and competitive intake of ME. (2).

Eggs Pork Milk Beef

Production unit 1 hen 22 pigs 1 cow 1 calf Support unit 0.05hens 1 sow 0.33heifers 1 cowOutput/year (kg food) 15 1300 8000 200

MJ food energy 130 13000 28000 2500

Input/year (MJ ME in total) 389 67038 67089 29850MJ 'competitive' ME 351 53630 20127 10268kg 'competitive' protein 5.0 736 236 108

EfficiencyFood Energy/total feed ME 0.33 0.19 0.42 0.08Food energy/'competitive' feed ME 0.35 0.24 1.39 0.24

Another approach to the audit of animal systems of special relevance to animalwelfare, is to pose the question How hard do animals work?. This is illustratedin Fig. 2 which compares feed intake (Metabolizable Energy, ME), heatproduction = work load, and energy yield in the form of food for human

consumption.

For simplicity of comparison these energy exchanges are compared against thestandard of a sedentary human (e.g. office worker). Growth in pigs and eggproduction in poultry are both relatively leisurely processes in energy terms(although calcium demands on laying hens are severe).

Lactation is extremely demanding, both for the dairy cow and the lactating sow.However the cow is expected to lactate for 10 months per year, the sowperhaps 6-10 weeks/year. This table alone is sufficient to explain the rapidburn-out and short productive life of the modern dairy cow.


4/11


Table 2. How hard do animals work? (2)

Species Activity Energy exchangeME intake Work/heat "Food"

Human Sedentary 1.00 1.00

Working miner 1.25 1.25Lactating woman 1.53 1.28 0.25Endurance cyclist 2.60 2.90 -0.30

Pig Grower 2.10 1.30 0.80Lactating sow 3.20 1.73 1.47

Birds Broiler chicken 2.10 1.18 0.92Laying hen 1.73 1.30 0.43Passerine feeding chicks 3.03 3.03

Cow Suckler with one calf 2.22 1.32 0.91Dairy cow, 50l/day 5.68 2.14 3.53

Another major criticism of animal farming concerns its negative impact on the

environment. Table 3 presents a simple life-cycle assessment of energy useand production of greenhouse gases (GHG) in poultry, pig and beef systems.By these measures, the intensive systems appear to be the most frugal,measure in terms of fuel energy use and GHG emissions measured in terms ofCO2 equivalents. Traditional systems, e.g. organic pork and pasture-finishedbeef, consume much more fuel energy and produce far more GHG than theintensive systems. These measures help to make a strong case forintensification. They do not make much of a case for beef production by anymeans.

Table 3. Life cycle assessment of inputs and emissions required to produce onetonne of meat in broiler, pig and beef production systems (3,4).

Output (1 tonne meat) Energy use (GJ) GHGME total ME competitive Fuel energy CO2 equiv

Broiler chickens 36 32 14.9 1.39

Pork, commercial 52 41 9.7 2.47

Pork, organic 68 49 11.4 2.52Beef, feedlot finished 149 51 84.2 32.7

Beef, pasture finished 194 20 114.2 45.3

Table 4 carries the life-cycle analysis further. Here balances of C and GHG areassessed in terms of the total system; GHG emissions from ruminants are setagainst C sequestration in pastures. By this analysis, beef grazing permanentpastures is the most environmentally friendly system. Agroforestry systems,where cattle or other appropriate species graze and manage the grass thatgrows between the trees are powerfully beneficial C sinks, mitigating theabuses resulting from consumption of fossil fuels. However, within currenteconomic rules, they dont generate much income.


5/11


Table 4. Balance of C and GHG in European grassland systems. All values areexpressed as g CO2 equivalents/m

2 per year (5).

Beef, grazing Dairy, grazingand barn fed

Dairy, barn fed

C sequestrationpasture onlypasture + barn

471471

183269

259361

CH4 productionpasture onlypasture + barn

145145

159387

0323

Net GHG sequestrationpasture onlypasture + barn

+320+320

-22-163

+230+9

The main conclusions I draw from these audits of animals in agriculture are:

Extensive systems are more costly in feed and energy Feed energy should be classified as competitive and complementary

Dairy production is extremely efficient but extremely demanding on thecows.

Feedlot beef is the worst by all measures

Extensive production can be environmentally friendly but can onlysurvive if we give proper value to the potential environmental benefits.

Animal health and welfareThe health and welfare of a sentient farm animal may be defined by thefollowing criteria.

Physiological state: the ability to meet e.g. metabolic requirements andmaintain homeothermy.

Health status: the ability to avoid e.g. injury and resist challenge frompathogens and parasites

Emotional status: the ability to avoid e.g. pain and fear, and maintain apositive emotional state.

Table 5 identifies some of the most important health and welfare problemsfor pigs, poultry and dairy cattle in intensive production systems. These include

the production diseases that are, by definition, acknowledged to have beencaused by us.


6/11


Table 5. Origins of major problems of health and welfare in intensive productionsystems. The most serious origins are indicated with an asterisk*. (Br =broilers, LH = laying hens)

Pigs Poultry Dairy Cattle

(including calves)Feeding Post weaning enteritis* Lameness (Br) Infertility*, ketosis

Rumen acidosisAnaemia, ulcers (veal)*

Housing Enzootic pneumoniaStereotypiesAggression, tail biting,Lameness

Lameness (Br)Frustration (LH)Bone fractures (LH)Feather pecking (LH)

Lameness, mastitisAbnormal behaviour(veal)*

Breeding Lameness (sows) Lameness (Br)*Bone fractures (LH)*Aggression (LH)Feather pecking (LH)?

Infertility*, mastitis,LamenessExhaustion

Management AggressionPain following mutilations

Lameness*Pain following mutilations

Structured approaches to the categorisation of welfare state in farm animalsinclude the Five Freedoms and the Principles and Criteria adopted by theWelfare Quality programme funded by the European Union (Table 6). Thesecriteria now form the basis for national and private-sector protocols for QualityAssurance in animal welfare.

Politics, philosophy and economics

There are three drivers to human actions in regard to animal production andanimal consumption, the law, economics and ethics. The law addressesmatters of animal welfare in three ways.

Proscriptive laws (what we must do and not do): eg. U.K. Protection ofAnimals Act (1911), Animal Welfare Act 2006

Regulations and Codes of Practice (what we should do and not do): e.g.EC directives (e.g. transport), DEFRA codes of practice.

Incentives (what we encourage you to do): e.g. EU common agriculturepolicy payments for rural development and higher stewardship


7/11


Table 6. Categories of good welfare as described by the Five Freedoms andthe Welfare Quality principles and criteria (6)

Five Freedoms Welfare principles Welfare criteria

Freedom from hunger and

thirst

Good feeding Absence of prolonged hunger

Absence of prolonged thirstFreedom from thermal andphysical discomfort

Good housing Comfort around restingThermal comfortEase of movement

Freedom from pain, injuryand disease

Good health Absence of injuriesAbsence of diseaseAbsence of pain induced bymanagement procedures

Freedom from fear andstress

Freedom to exhibit normalbehaviour

Appropriate behaviour Expression of social behavioursExpression of other behavioursGood human-animalrelationshipPositive emotional state

The economics of supply and demand with regard to farm products are drivenby how we value the services they provide. These are illustrated in Fig.2. Wevalue the benefits we obtain according to their use value do they give usethe food we need at a price we can afford? and their non-use value whatsatisfaction do they give us by other measures of satisfaction. These are manyand various, ranging from high ethical principles to fashion and status. Thepoint to be made in this context is that it is self-defeating to consider food simplyas a commodity to be sold at the cheapest price. The success of high welfare

foods (e.g. free-range eggs) is a striking example of this.

Fig 2. Valuation of goods and services from the the land (7)


8/11


Although human actions are driven primarily by economics and legislation, it isproper (indeed ethical) to analyse human behaviour according to classicalprinciples of ethics. These are illustrated very simply in the form of an EthicalMatrix that examines the moral responsibilities of producers and society to ourmoral patients, the farm animals and the living environment.

Table 6. The Ethical Matrix

Beneficence Autonomy Justice

Moral agents

Human society atlarge

Wholesome, safe,cheap foodAccess to thecountryside

Freedom of choice Fair food pricingLegislation andincentives:productionmethods and landuse

Producers and landowners

Financial rewardPride in work

Free competition Fair tradeGood husbandry

Moral patients

Farm animals Competent andhumane husbandry

EnvironmentalenrichmentIndividual freedom ofchoice

A life worth living

The livingenvironment

ConservationSustainability

BiodiversityLive and let live

Respect forenvironment andstewards of theenvironment

The future: better, kinder foodWe already know enough to enable us to manage things better in future. Thepaths to the destiny of better, kinder food include implementation of betterpractice, the application of good new science and changing attitudes withinsociety. Examples of routes to this end are given below.

Poultry

Broilers Layers

Practice Feeding in early developmentSelection of fitter strainsHatchery hygiene

Building design (bone fractures)

Science Improved selection

Genomics

Calcium metabolismDisease resistance (vaccines,genetics)Selection against feather pecking

Society Demand for high welfare breedsLegislation for environmentalstandards

Demand for free range eggsLegislation for environmentalstandards


9/11


Dairy cowsPractice Selection for robustness

Improved foot careManagement in transition/early lactation

Science Mastitis resistance (vaccines, selection, genomics)

MAS for increased robustnessMilk composition: casein structure, farmaceuticals

Society Quality control schemes:- supermarket initiativesLegislation on environmental standards

Planet husbandryMy first big message is that we (society at large) need to consider animalproduction within the context of planet husbandry, namely best use of theland. This must be assessed in terms of all the criteria listed in Table 7. Theopportunities for planet husbandry include the sustainable, economic productionof food and other utilities, non-food products, including energy generation from

biomass, biofuels and wind power. They should also be seen to includestewardship of the living environment measured in terms of critical elements ofenvironmental quality such as carbon, nitrogen, water and greenhouse gasesand in terms of less physical human non-use values such as amenity,recreation and beauty. All these opportunities carry matching responsibilities.

Table 7 Opportunities and responsibilities in planet husbandry

Aims Opportunities Responsibilities

Food from plants Food for humans

Feed for animals

Soil qualityPollution control

Preservation of habitatComplementarity

Food from animals CommoditiesValue-added products

Public healthAnimal welfarePollution control

Non-food items Fibres (e.g. cotton, wool)Draft powerBiomass and biofuels

Animal welfareSoil quality

Amenities Access to countrysideRecreationField sports

Health and safetyAestheticsHumanity and utility

Stewardship C & N sequestration

Water managementWildlife managementSustained land value

Support from society

If it is to succeed, the concept of planet husbandry will require a balanced policyof penalties and rewards: penalties for pollution but commensurate rewards foreffective action to mitigate pollution from all sources and enhance the quality ofthe living environment assessed from both use and non-use measures ofvalue.


10/11


Society cannot expect the landowners, who are the real stewards, to provide allthese elements of lasting value unless we are prepared to reward them withmore than income from sale of food as a commodity. Who pays and how isopen to negotiation. I suggest that those things that contribute to the generalgood, e.g. carbon sequestration and water management should be subsidised

through taxation, those that add value for the individual, e.g. high-welfare food,should be paid for by the individual.

Quality assurance and quality controlMy second big message is that if we (society at large) are to driveimprovements in animal husbandry, we need to be convinced that thestandards we demand are actually being met. This requires a strategy forassessment and surveillance of husbandry standards operating in parallel witha policy for the promotion of guaranteed better products and practices. Myapproach to this in the specific context of animal welfare is illustrated by theconcept of the Virtuous Bicycle; two simultaneous virtuous cycles operating on

farm and beyond the farm gate (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. The Virtuous Bicycle: a delivery vehicle for improved farm welfare (6)

The producer cycle involves self-assessment by the farmer, monitoring ofhusbandry and welfare by a trained independent observer and theimplementation of a dynamic action plan for animal health and welfare. Theretailer cycle depends on proof of compliance with standards and promotion ofadded value goods, where quality of life for the farm animals and the livingenvironment are included within the assessment of value.


11/11


The approach is already being incorporated into quality assurance schemesoperated by supermarkets and bodies such as RSPCA. It is essential howeverthat the scheme brings rewards to all parties, consumers, farmers and theiranimals.

When I first began to trawl these ideas (in a much more nave way) some thirtyyears ago, they met with serious opposition from the farming industry, whofeared that things were bad now and this approach would only make thingsworse. With time, and increasing public concern for farm animal welfare, farmerresponse moved towards the position that they would love to look after our landand our animals better but if they do they will be ruined by the supermarketsand foreign competition.

In UK the recent expansion in sales of added-value products like free-rangeeggs and Freedom Foods, together with supermarket rewards to their clients forimproved animal welfare is rendering many of these fears groundless and

creating a new optimism within the farming industry. Many of us have beentrying for years to unlock the door to husbandry regained. To my delight (andsurprise) it has blown wide open.

A full exposition of these arguments will be published later this year byEarthscan as: John Webster, Husbandry Regained: futures for animals insustainable agriculture

References1. FAO (2010) Climate-smart agriculture: policies practices and financing

for food security, adaptation and mitigation. FAO, Rome2. Webster John (2005).Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden. Blackwell

Publications, Oxford 287pp.3. Pelletier N, Lammers P, Stender D, Pirog R (2010) Life cycle

assessment of high and low-profitability commodity and deep-beddednache swine production systems in the Upper Midwestern United States.Agricultural Systems 103, 599-608

4. Pelletier N, Pirog R, Rasmussen R. (2010) Comparative life cycleenvironmental impact of three beef production strategies in the upperMidwestern United States. Agricultural Systems 103, 380-389

5. Soussana J-F, Klumpp K, Tallec T (2009) Mitigating livestock

greenhouse gas balance through carbon sequestration in grasslands iopscience iop.org6. Webster AJF 2009 The Virtuous Bicycle: A delivery vehicle for improved

farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare. 18, 141-1487. McInerney J (2012) Ethics and the economics of animal use.

Proceedings First International Conference on Veterinary and AnimalEthics. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford in press.

mon 1.3 webster, john plenary

Documents