|
|
Moneyed Momentum
Animal rights
advocates are changing the way some producers manage livestock,
but some producers are passing laws to protect them and their
livestock from activists.
by:
Wes Ishmael |
If you’re one of those left-wing
animal rights nuts who hold a membership in a left-wing,
whack-job organizations like the Humane Society of the United
State or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, go ahead,
celebrate. You’ve had quite a year, what with the passage of
Proposition 2 in California, convincing voters there that you
know more about livestock health and well being than all of the
producers and animal health care professionals in the world.
As most anyone knows who owns livestock and has an area code
east of the Rocky Mountains, Proposition 2 is the law that will
make it a criminal offense (by 2015) in California to confine
hens in battery cages, sows in gestation crates and calves in
veal crates.
Never mind the credible authorities who expressed concern that
passage of the law could easily accomplish the opposite of what
proponents were apparently attempting to achieve.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association ahead
of the election, “Proposition 2 is admirable in its goal to
improve the welfare of production farm animals; however, it
ignores critical aspects of animal welfare that ultimately would
threaten the well-being of the very animals it strives to
protect.
“The best housing environments take into consideration all
relevant factors, including: freedom of movement; expression of
normal behaviors; protection from disease, injury, and
predators; adequate food and water; and proper handling.
Proposition 2 would clearly provide greater freedom of movement,
but would likely compromise several of the other factors
necessary to ensure the overall welfare of the animals,
especially with regard to protection from disease and injury.”
All Cost
Proposition 2 shouldn’t change much in California at first,
other than destroying the state’s egg industry. That’s the
assessment of research conducted and funded by the University of
California (UC) last July.
“The most likely outcome is the elimination of almost all of the
California egg industry over a very few years,” said the study’s
lead author Daniel Sumner, director of the Agricultural Issues
Center and Frank H. Buck, Jr. Professor at UC- Davis Department
of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
Using published data from a variety of sources and cost
information from farmers who have both non-cage and cage
systems, the UC researchers found that non-cage systems incur
production costs that are at least 20% higher per dozen eggs
than cage systems. The added costs per dozen include higher feed
costs, higher housing costs, higher pullet costs and higher
labor costs.
According to the study, to comply with the new regulations,
California producers would need to invest about $500 million in
new or retrofitted housing systems.
“Since the proposed restrictions apply only to eggs produced in
California, the regulations would raise the costs of California
production relative to costs in other states,” said Sumner.
Although retail prices for eggs from non-cage systems are at
least 25% percent higher than conventionally produced eggs,
California consumers would see little if any price increase from
the initiative because more eggs produced in cage systems in
other states would be shipped to California to replace the eggs
no longer produced in the state.
According to the study, California produces about 6% of the
nation’s table eggs, and consumes about 12%. The value of table
egg production in California was about $330 million in 2007. The
industry produces almost 5 billion eggs per year from almost 20
million laying hens.
Currently fewer than 5% of the eggs produced in the state come
from hens that are not housed in cages (non-cage or cage-free
eggs). The UC study notes that non-cage production costs are
simply too high to compete with cage-production eggs shipped
into the state.
No Return
Oh yeah. As for those California hens in their roomier digs,
more of them will die than if they’d been left in their cages.
“Egg farmers began housing hens in cages in the 1930s in order
to reduce hen health problems, improve egg cleanliness and
increase the economic efficiency of egg production,” said UC
study co-author Joy A. Mench, UC Davis professor and director of
the Center for Animal Welfare.
“We are despondent that California voters didn’t hear animal
welfare experts’ messages warning of higher rates of death in
non-cage systems, increased rates of smothering, increased
incidences of aggression and much more,” said Kay Johnson-Smith,
Executive Vice President of the Animal Agriculture Alliance.
“Our organization believes that quality animal welfare creates
wins for animals, farmers and consumers. It is disappointing to
learn that, in the tumult caused by all the various initiatives,
consumers didn’t hear that message.”
About 3,000 people work in California egg production, mostly in
the southern part of the state, the Central Valley and Sonoma
County. The UC study points out that eliminating those jobs
would have a significant impact on the California economy,
especially in rural areas such as in Merced County, which has
higher poverty and unemployment rates than the state average.
“Prop 2 will raise prices for Californian consumers while
simultaneously causing a chill in California’s agricultural
economy,” said Johnson-Smith. “According to an October 2008
report, compiled by Promar International Ltd., animal
agriculture contributes nearly 90,000 jobs, $126 million in
property taxes and $590 million in income and sales taxes to
California every year.”
Though the pork and veal industries aren’t huge players in the
state, the legislation virtually guarantees they’ll never have a
chance to be, either.
Worse than how the law directly damages state egg producers in
the near-term is the fissure of common sense it cleaves. Animal
rights advocates wasted no time in advancing a slate of new
bills after the passage of Proposition 2. Among those introduced
is one that would ban docking the tails of dairy cattle. Another
would make it illegal to import eggs from states and nations
where hens are housed in pre-Proposition 2 facilities.
The California win also prompted similar action around the
country. For instance, Maine’s governor recently signed a law
that will ban gestation and veal crates in that state by 2011.
In May Wendy’s became the latest burger giant to announce it
would begin procuring cage-free eggs.
Hope’s Glimmer
About the time livestock producers figured common sense and
reason had been overwhelmed by ignorance and hysteria, along
comes Oklahoma.
In May, Oklahoma Governor, Brad Henry, signed into law what’s
known as the livestock pre-emption bill. It takes animal welfare
authority out of the hands of local government, and out of the
hands of state government for that matter. The state’s
department of agriculture now has full authority to establish
and enforce animal welfare regulations. That means if animal
rights activists decide to attack livestock industries or
producers in the state, they’ll have to reckon with the Oklahoma
Department of Agriculture, with the full weight of state
authority behind them.
“We don’t want an outside group coming into Oklahoma, mandating
how we care for livestock,” explains Mike Spradling, Oklahoma
Farm Bureau president (OFB). “Our producers have learned through
experience and training the proper animal husbandry and they
have every intention to care for animals in the best possible
way.”
Producers in Oklahoma already knew that, as did OFB and the
other organizations that represent them. Now the public knows it
with the certainty that accompanies the democratic process.
Unsurprisingly, various reports indicate other states are
considering similar legislation.
|
|
|
|
