Page 259 - The Welfare of Cattle

236 the WeLfare of CattLe

the domestication of species by humans is dependent on the social contract of animal husbandry
where “we take care of the animals and the animals take care of us.” Therefore, it is not surprising
that throughout history there are numerous examples of how humans have relied on this inherent
contract to optimize resource utilization throughout the centuries. In fact, this very concept has
allowed for the optimization of food usage by having animals consume foods that humans either
did not want to consume or were deemed unfit for human consumption. A prime example of this
concept is illustrated by the Great Irish Famine of the mid-1800s. While the famine is widely known
as the “potato famine,” it is the tangential impacts that the Phytophthora infestans caused that may
have had as great an impact as the actual loss of the staple crop of potatoes. While there were likely
many political issues that also led to the famine (O’Grada, 1995), it is interesting to note that while
many food exports increased during the famine, the staples remaining for the working classes were
greatly diminished. This included the production of pork and other livestock such as sheep and
cattle that were also reliant on the potato as a component of their fodder (Bourke, 1968). Therefore,
as there was a loss of the excess potato crop, not only did the Irish lose their staple food, but also
much of their associated livestock production as well. This example along with innumerable others
throughout history illustrates the dependence of humans upon a successful interaction with live-
stock production systems and how management (or mismanagement) may play a role in the ultimate
preservation and livelihood of this relationship.
With the global backdrop of growing concern over the rapid increase in the human population,
there has been a growing social demand for food production services that help to address the rela-
tionship between humans, agricultural production systems and then natural environment. While
not necessarily representative of the phenomenon in total, the growth of the Whole Foods Market
serves as an example of this growth in concern over how food is produced in general, with a spe-
cific focus on environmental impacts. Whole Foods Market (2017) began as a small local market
2
in Austin, TX, in 1980 which encompassed a total of 980 m . This has grown to become the largest
single grocery chain serving this niche market in 2017, with an estimated 91,000 employees with
stores in the US, Canada, and the UK. Many of the products and marketing strategies have been
focused on products that are labeled as “Organic” or some other labeling program with a focus on
defining particular practices that are used in the production of those foods and other products. Many
of these labeling programs limit or forbid products or practices that are widely used in conventional
livestock production. These may include the use of growth promotants, housing standards for live-
stock, and other measures that are perceived to be harmful to either the environment or the welfare
of the animals.
Conversely, there is a growing consensus among the scientific community that there are indeed
some very real and objective measures that would indicate that much of the perceived “ sustainability”
of these niche programs may not hold up to deeper scrutiny (Capper et al., 2009, 2011; FAO, 2013).
Many of these comparisons between conventional and niche livestock production systems focus on
the advantages offered by conventional practices that optimize the use of approved technologies
and management techniques for the production of livestock. However, many of these comparisons
do not consider the additional cost borne by the animals for the sake of these efficiencies. For
example, it had been a common practice in the swine industry to house gestating sows in crates
that only allow the animal to stand up (sometimes not even fully) or lay down. While this crating
method would undoubtedly make it easier for individual management of animals in a large scale
production system, it does not take into account the pain or suffering that may be incurred by the
animal in this highly efficient system. Not surprisingly many people find these compromises for
production efficiency to be unacceptable and there have been growing efforts to improve many of
the more egregious animal housing conditions such as veal crates, battery cages for hens and gesta-
tion crates for swine. Unfortunately, there is limited published data regarding life cycle assessments
that truly determines if these practices actually do reduce resource use and efficiency of production
when incorporating all of the costs, including population turnover of animals kept in these types