Continuing research on design of production facilities
A significant amount of helpful research has already been undertaken on farm design to support animal welfare. Farmers building new facilities now have access to many new layouts that facilitate improved living and feeding conditions while optimizing production in the new environment. The more challenging question is how to convert existing conventional facilities to ones more conducive to welfare, and at as low a transition cost as possible. Some literature shows that an affordable transition from conventional to animal welfare designs, along with other factors, can help speed up the transition process for an industry (cf. Saatkamp et al., 2019 on the rapid transition in the Dutch broiler industry).
The transition challenges across different animal production systems are not all equivalent. Beef cattle are likely the easiest if an operation has sufficient area for pasture and hay production. Intensive hog operations are likely the most difficult, made more challenging by the highly variable economic conditions in the industry.
Ideally, farm and barn transition designs allow for multiple pathways, with different interim measures, to accommodate the realities of different farm operations. Given the focus on this site on sustainable systems, the transition designs should also allow for integration with other sustainability parameters.
Improving the standards, verification, and funding (with significant contributions from Alyssa Marchese)
This discussion is linked to Goal 5 Sustainable Food, Efficiency. The standards need to be improved and there have to be verification systems, with inspection. MacRae has written many production standards and concludes:
- a points based system is the most desirable, one that gives more points for increasingly significant changes and has a mix of management changes that allow farmers to tailor to their operations
- a points-based system is also easier for inspectors to interpret and they can provide partial points for certain practices
- to be approved, a points threshold must be passed, typically 75% of total points available
- continuous improvement is critical because the art is to balance progress with viability; as the standard becomes more commonly used and individual farms have more experience with it, more points can be accumulated, and management practices in the standard can be made more rigorous
- a points - based system also helps with program wide data analysis and use of different program metrics
It makes sense for third party standards, rather than government ones, to be used. But governments must require that they be stronger and use grant funding to assure that. As discussed under Framing Solutions, the standards must reflect more of Traditions 2 and 3, then Tradition 1 which is the dominant thinking in NFACC standards.
By looking at specific codes, one can understand the problematic nature that industry influence has had on making meaningful animal welfare standards. The cornerstone of intensive production is extreme animal density and confinement. Resulting from the existing industry codes attempting to deal with a wide range of production systems, codes typically reflect a dominant approach. The universal application of said codes therefore limits their ability to address some of the more damaging aspects of conventional production systems. For example, since industry informs the codes, some essential considerations are omitted, including the fundamental issue of density within the farms. Increased animal density allows for higher profit margins, so imposing density restrictions within facilities will negatively affect profitability in the current model. For example, within the Codes of Practice for the care and handling of hatching eggs, breeders, chickens and turkeys, the NFACC states “Optimal stocking density is significantly affected by housing factors, such as ventilation, litter management, and the method of delivery of both feed and water. Bird welfare and successful performance depend on the complex interaction of these and other factors, rather than on the observance of a single maximum stocking density allowance” (20). By looking at traditions 2 and 3 from Fraser, it becomes apparent that the codes do not reflect or conceive of animal welfare through an animal’s affective states or through producing reasonable natural environments. The table below outlines current codes for poultry and ways to rewrite the codes that reflect animal welfare through utilizing traditions 2 and 3 from Fraser.
| NFACC Code element | Efficiency stage change | Substitution change | Supporting literature | Changing the language of the NFACC codes |
| 2.5 Physical Alterations and Bird Identification
(Beak Trimming) |
The LFP Livestock Programme details a starting point to transition to tradition 2 and 3 (Fraser, 2004). Beak trimming is discouraged “if birds are not debeaked in the hatchery.” Backus (2014) notes that when beaks are trimmed at the hatchery level, either through conventional or more modern methods, neuromas forming is much less likely. When the procedure occurs when chicks are younger in age, “The beak heals rapidly and grows back but shorter than non-trimmed birds and with no afferent nerves or sensory corpuscles” (Backus, McGlone & Guay, 2014, pp.395).
There are exceptions for debeaking after the hatchery if other attempts and strategies are unsuccessful.
One change that could be made immediately is for the procedure to be only conducted by trained personnel and with an animal less than 10 days old with the tip of the upper mandible being trimmed. |
Modifications should not cause animal to feel anguish, pain, or suffering. All alterations of birds should use the most advance technology to determine affective states of the animal and to allow the animal to exhibit normal behaviours and feeding practices that will not be altered through modifications to animal autonomy. For example, trimming using an infrared (IR) procedure conducted at the hatchery level could lead to reduced pain and resolve issues relating to cannibalism, aggressive behaviors, and feather pecking (Backus, McGlone & Guay, 2014).
|
Debeaking can be a response to hunger from delayed feeding or underfeeding (Moreki et al., 2021). This aggression causes the birds to lash out, harming the individual bird or other birds in close proximity. Research points to the fact that “by banning beak trimming practices, bird mortality resulting from aggression and feather pecking will increase” (Dennis & Cheng, 2010, p. 717) However, more research should be conducted to explore if implementing stricter density restrictions within farms would reduce aggression and feather pecking.
|
Beak trimming shall only be conducted in the hatchery stage, utilizing innovative technology such as the infrared (IR) procedure to ensure the least amount of pain in inflicted onto the chick. Furthermore, the procedure shall only be conducted by trained operators on chicks less than 10 days of age, trimming only the tip of the upper mandible.
|
| 1.5 Stocking Densities
|
Instead of continuing to use conventional laying cages, the housing system for layers can be changed from conventional laying cages to enriched cages. Enriched cages are described as larger than conventional laying cages, and has perches, nest boxes and litter.
For example, using enriched cages will provide each hen with (at minimum) approximately 750 cm² of space compared with conventional cages of 550 cm² per hen (Van Horne, & Achterbosch, 2008). The change in cages can mitigate the density issue.
|
One major component to further reflect tradition 2 and 3 developed by Fraser is substituting some of the environmental aspects of poultry farms. Environmental enrichment is noted to increase an animal’s normal/species-specific behavior, reducing and preventing abnormal behaviours from developing, utilizing the environment, and increase the animal’s ability to adapt to changes and challenges (Riber et al., 2018). In fact, environmental enrichment utilizes all 3 traditions posed by Fraser due to environmental enrichment being based on biologically relevant factors to create effective mechanisms aiding in increased welfare (Riber et al., 2018). Some examples of enriching the environment include:
- Adding Straw bales (used by chickens as material for foraging, as a resting place, and decreases lameness and leg disorders (Why is environmental… 2019) - Incorporating organic and non-organic materials. An example is creating pecking blocks (Why is environmental… 2019) - Adding food like broccoli or cabbage for chickens to peck (Why is environmental… 2019) - Adding perches and platforms to enhance natural behaviour and aid in leg health (Why is environmental… 2019). |
Esmail (2020) notes that “High stocking density causes reduced feed consumption, lower growth rates and poor-quality carcasses. Besides, high stocking density may be associated with a surge in airborne pathogens.”
Optimal stocking density (for turkeys) ranges from low (30 kg/m2) to moderate densities (40 and 50 kg/m2). Beaulac and Schwean-Lardner (2018) note that “To achieve optimal bird health and wellbeing, low to moderate densities may be ideal, however performance parameters should also contribute when selecting optimal SD (pp.10).”
With less hens per unit area, space allowance increasing, providing increased freedom of hens to move. By utilizing different cages and environments, tradition 2 and 3 from Fraser can be more thoroughly incorporated. For example, more space can allow for animals to have enhanced and positive affective states and can further allow animals to practice natural behaviours. These are amongst the many ways to improve welfare within poultry farms within Canada (Weimer et al., 2019).
|
Environments in which animals are housed should reflect and mimic environments that encourage natural behaviours to be expressed. Additionally, the environment should be equipped with things that both meet basic needs and reflect their wants. Incorporating step stools or pails allow birds to practice natural behaviours (perching) while providing a safe and comforting space for them (Cardwell, 2019).
|
| 5.1 Flock Health Plan and
5.2 Disease Prevention
|
To increase welfare and affective states of animals within farms, proactive preventative medicine should be incorporated within both the Flock Health Plan and Disease Prevention strategies. Additionally, another provision within both plans should be procedures set in place that specifies how welfare of the animals are assured on a daily basis. The additional provisions aid in promoting natural lives of the animals and can limit disease and antimicrobial resistance within the farms.
|
One practice that can be substituted is worker/farmer treatment of disease for veterinary care. To ensure that animals receive proper treatment, there should be a vet working within or close to a farm that can treat the sick or injured animals. The investment into paying professional fees associated with proper care of farm animals aids in the transition into developing disease and health plans that better reflect the affective states and natural behaviours of animals. Thus, rather than advising veterinarian assistance with the development of the Flock health plan and their role in disease prevention and protocols, the NFACC Codes should better stress the requirement of such involvement. Proper plans and on site veterinarians will limit suffering of animals though proper treatment, decrease the spread of a disease outbreak, and can enhance traditions 2 and 3 by providing the farm with preventative, rather than reactionary strategies to limit disease and to increase health and wellbeing of animals.
|
Fundamental to conversations around health plans and disease prevention should be the reduction of stock densities, maintaining infrastructure ensuring proper ventilation, and various other factors within the farm relating to lighting, feed, vaccination and proper sanitization to name a few. However, density is not considered within both the flock health plan and the disease prevention section of the NFACC Code. As Robertson (2020) notes, the density within a livestock enterprise is linked to risk of disease introduction within a flock. Thus, it is incomplete and misleading to omit density due to its role spreading disease and posing a risk to poultry.
|
The Health Plan and Disease Prevention strategy should incorporate, where possible, provisions regarding both proactive preventative medicine and veterinary care for ill or injured animals. |
The strategy is create a private - public hybrid approach to standards, or a co-governance model as was used in New Zealand when improving their animal welfare regime (cf. Sankoff, 2019). The state would have to set out the inspection and certification procedures, much as it has done for the organic regulations, although these need not be as onerous. However, they would need to be stronger than an industry self-governing system, as NFACC has proposed for its standards (Sankoff, 2019). A Participatory Guarantee approach to authenticate producer compliance might occupy a space between pure self-regulation and regulatory reference. One reason why governments must mandate standards and compliance procedures is that mainstream farm and commodity groups have largely been unwilling to create programs that would differentiate their members on the basis of sustainable management practices, which has retarded movement in the right direction.
Changes to food labels
Food label changes are required to help consumers identify producers following approved standards. As discussed under Goal 1, Changing Consumer Information Systems, Efficiency, Promoting Sustainability, the current regulation of animal welfare terms is incomplete, not systematic, weak, not well monitored and enforced and ultimately not helpful. Most of the current rules relate to inputs that can be part of a system that preferences animal welfare, but not comprehensive integrated systems themselves (CFIA Food Labelling for Industry).
Once standards have been improved and verification procedures established, rather than a full labelling and marketing program, at this stage it makes sense for CFIA to permit a single claim on packages from producers and processors verified to be following a government recognized standard. A sentence something like the following could be permitted: "This food is produced from a government - approved standard that promotes animal welfare".
Processors with multiple product lines under different management regimes would have to have verified audit trails to use the claim. Multi-ingredent products would not be possible under such a system.
