Good news for modern farm animals

From New Jersey, bad news for factory farms 7

Thomas Hobbes famously described life in a "state of nature" as "nasty, brutish, and short." The U.S. meat industry appears to have taken Hobbes' statement as a prescription for proper animal husbandry.

Every year, millions of farm animals are slaughtered without ever knowing anything besides life in a grim, crowded cage. Many are subjected to painful mutilation, as in the case of "tail docking."

In a sense, cows may have it worst of all. They typically spend the first six months outdoors, munching the pasture they evolved to eat. It must be a shock when they're loaded into trucks and sent to a feedlot, where they stand crowded together in their own shit and eat corn, which makes them sick. (Increasingly, they're eating "distillers grains," the industrial waste of the corn-ethanol process.) Unlike, say, caged hens, feedlot-imprisoned cows know what they're missing.

I'm happy to note that much-abused farm creatures may soon be getting some relief from a recent court ruling in New Jersey.

In New Jersey, the state Supreme Court recently ruled that factory farming practices do not qualify as "humane" simply because they are widely used. As in many states, New Jersey's Department of Agriculture had automatically labeled all "routine" husbandry practices as humane, just because, you know, everyone else is doing them.

From the press release of the groups that filed the suit:

In addition to striking down the agency's exemption for "routine husbandry practices," the Court further held that tail docking could not be considered humane, and the manner in which mutilations without anesthesia including castration, de-beaking and de-toeing could not be considered humane without some specific requirements to prevent pain and suffering.

Let's hope the case creates a template for challenges to other states' lax standards on cruelty. A campaign in California hopes to pass Proposition 2, the "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act." A recent post by Meredith Niles described what's at stock with Prop 2, on which California voters will decide in November.

Grist food editor Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Follow my Twitter feed; contact me at tphilpott[at]grist[dot]org.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Wolverine Posted 9:25 am
    01 Aug 2008

    Grass Fed CowsTom, you're in the east and this isn't an issue there, but cattle and sheep grazing in the west causes massive ecological damage.  While I applaud this decision as one that will reduce cruelty, I certainly hope that it doesn't end up resulting in even more western cattle further destroying western grasslands, deserts, and forests.

    Permalink

  2. John former Marine Posted 10:59 am
    01 Aug 2008

    Western grazing...I ran by a figure two years ago that showed that the Forest Service was spending $15 million more in Colorado to repair cattle-related erosion damage than they were taking in from grazing permit fees.  Somebody out there in Gristland probably has some better, up-to-date figures to offer.
    I have to agree with Wolverine that the damage to our Western states (repaired with our tax dollars or just not repaired at all) amounts to another subsidy for the meat industry.
    If CAFOs go away, overall consumption of meat would have to go down considerably to not overgraze sensitive lands.  I'd like to see all grazing permits on public land ended.  As well as mining, etc.
    I read a great book a couple of years ago called "All Flesh is Grass".  It was about small-scale intensive grazing (i.e. get a goat to mow your 1-acre lawn), kind of like the animal husbandry version of "square foot gardening."  If animals are going to continue to be part of the integrated small subsistence farm, it should be replacing lawns with pasture, not pushing the wilderness further back to accomodate more grass-fed beef.

    Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

    Permalink

  3. caniscandida Posted 4:23 pm
    01 Aug 2008

    Proposition 2See also the recent piece by Nicholas Kristof, who grew up on a farm in Oregon, about the potentially very important vote in California:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/opinion/31kristof.html
    So it seems that Californians will have the opportunity to strike a blow for animal rights as well as for gay rights this November.

    Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

  4. Rebecca T of HonestMeat Posted 1:00 am
    06 Aug 2008

    Grazing in the WestI live in the West and we practice short-duration, high-intensity grazing that does not damage the range.  In fact, this method has been shown to revive and replenish grasslands and even help bring native grasses back as it mimics natural animal herding behavior.  All grazing in the West is not the same, nor is every animal's impact the same (for example, goats eat browse while cows eat grass).  So it paints an inaccurate picture to categorically say that grazing is bad for the West.  See what happens when you remove it completely- the brush will invade and create horrendous fire conditions.

    Permalink

  5. Wolverine Posted 9:02 am
    06 Aug 2008

    Rebecca

    Where in the West are you?
    What native animals do you claim that your cattle are replacing?  (Hint: There were no native grazers west of the Rocky Mountains to speak of, only browsers.)

    Permalink

  6. Rebecca T of HonestMeat Posted 4:45 am
    07 Aug 2008

    All grazing is not created equal

    I live in California, but have lived in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Colorado

    Native herbivores of the West have included: elk, bison, pronghorn, mule deer, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, moose, and even prairie dogs.  Although some of these are classified as browsers, even the definition of browsers includes some grass & forb consumption.


    A thoughtful, well-managed grazing operation can be an excellent land-management tool and is preferable to increased brush-fire conditions, expansion of non-native species, or the conversion of rangelands to mini-mansions and ranchettes.

    Permalink

  7. amc89 Posted 12:19 pm
    25 Sep 2008

    This Proposition deals more with chickens and pigsProp 2 bans the caging or crating of egg-laying hens, pigs and veal calves so it doesn't really impact cattle grazing that much.  I'm hoping not only that Prop 2 will win but that the campaigns and advertizing for it will make consumers more aware of the realities of where most of their animal products are now coming from- not from family farms but from factory farms.  Hopefully more people will go vegetarian or reduce and alter their animal product consumption because of what they've learned.  
    Check out the video promoting campaign by the makers of the Meatrix at  http://uncaged.yesonprop2.com/   

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement