Posts Tagged ‘mutilation’

Living with hens – Part III

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011

Each hen is an individual with her own perceptible character, habits and preferences. This is something I’ve come to appreciate afresh by living with our four adopted hens, Hetty, Henna, Honey and Hope. Hetty rules the roost. She is larger than the rest and more richly resplendent with the reds, browns and rusty hues of her breed. She is unsurprisingly the most independent of the flock; self-assured but not too deferential or attentive to her human carers.

Hope, the second of the original three hens, has a face that seems older than her physical years. Her eyes are lined by the hen equivalent of bags and the feathers atop her head are sparser, making her look a bit bald. She is the most timid and often the first to take herself off to roost at night. Her interest in the tasty kitchen scraps we offer is much less magnetic than her fellows. Whilst the other hens can be easily lured to the coop with bread or lettuce, Hope will often watch from the safety of the Rhododendrons; needing further coaxing; gentle guiding by ‘Basil’, our trusty broom.

Henna and Honey are the two more newly adopted hens. Both have been debeaked; their beaks cut back with a hot blade or infra-red beam when they were chicks. It’s a mutilation carried out to prevent crowded hens pecking and injuring each other. It’s largely unnecessary with good husbandry. Henna, so-called because of her hair-dye dark colouration, has a beak that has regrown unevenly, crossing toward the tip. Both birds are inquisitive and, despite the brutality of their early days, are attentive and quick to sprint the length of the garden as soon as my wife, Helen, or I appear at the back door. A similar greeting now awaits our neighbours when they come through the back gate. Yes, it’s cupboard love! But when the scraps are all pecked up, Henna and Honey will often stay with us, gently pecking at our shoes and clothing. They seem intently interested by our presence. This is the time when I sometimes lift Henna up and hold her in my arms. She’ll make quiet, contented noises, and snuggle down with eyes gently closed, tugging at my jumper as if rearranging her nest.

Honey has big eyes and the shortest finch-like beak. Combined with her light yellow plumage, she has an alert, naive, slightly surprised expression. Honey is perhaps the fondest of bread. She needs no second bidding to peck furiously at slices or chunks held within her reach. One day after Helen had been particularly busy cleaning the house top to bottom, she came down stairs to find Honey in the kitchen, no doubt looking for bread or other enticing treats. She had been dust-bathing before coming into the house and shook like a wet dog, showering the only-just-cleaned floor with a thin layer of compost!

Watching their individual characteristics and behaviours has helped me gain a greater understanding of their needs and the sentience of animals; that they can feel pain and suffer and, if we let them, experience a sense of well-being. It has deepened my commitment to speak up for their welfare. To make sure that animal welfare really does get recognised as a key issue of social justice as well as to a fair and sustainable society. The way we treat farm animals on our factory farms is a travesty of our time. My determined aim is to see an end to factory farming, typified by the cruel icon of hens crammed for life into tiny cages. I want to see an end to the unimaginable suffering of factory farming, and soon. It is not only cruel, but also threatens our environment, public health and the ability of future generations to feed themselves. A huge thank you to all those supporters of Compassion’s campaigns; together, we will end factory farming and leave a better world for future generations.

Philip's hens

FAWC undermines debeaking ban

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

The British ban on debeaking of laying hens, due to be implemented in January 2011, has been undermined by the Government’s own advisory body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). A recent FAWC letter advises the Minister to defer the ban with no set date for implementation.

Debeaking (or ‘beak-trimming’ as it is often referred) involves cutting off a chunk of the bird’s beak with a red-hot blade or a laser beam. It is a serious mutilation used to control injurious pecking caused by factors such as inappropriate husbandry systems, management or strain of hen.

In its letter, FAWC recommended that the 2011 ban be deferred. Why? To give farmers more time to adjust their methods. Yet the same FAWC letter admits that the industry has already had seven years to prepare. “More effort should have been made by the industry to prepare for the ban” says FAWC. Compassion couldn’t agree more. By developing “new strains of hen or husbandry systems, for example”, says FAWC. Again, couldn’t agree more. Yet, instead of being clear that more should have been and must be done, FAWC’s advice, if accepted, would effectively leave things open-ended.

FAWC has not only recommended the ban be deferred, but that setting a new implementation date itself should not be “reviewed” until 2015. I cannot help seeing this as a way of kicking this badly needed reform into the long grass.

Debeaking a bird can be likened to cutting off our fingers. It robs the bird of the proper use of its primary way of feeling and exploring its world. As FAWC itself puts it, debeaking is a concern because of the “trauma to the bird during the procedure; loss of a sensory tool; and loss of integrity of a living animal by the removal of part of its beak”.

As we discussed in a recent posting, research shows debeaking to be redundant when strains of birds are selected who are less prone to feather pecking and cannibalism and kept in humane conditions.
Given the lamentable lack of action from industry in response to new legislation, surely more pressure should be applied in readiness for the impending reform? After all, the Government’s decision to ban the serious mutilation of debeaking was supported by science.

I sympathise with those in the farming community looking for clear direction. If FAWC’s advice is accepted, then both farmers and animal welfare will be badly let down. What is needed is strong, decisive leadership that sets a date for reform and does what is necessary to see it through. If, and only if, producers need more time to adjust (and Compassion remains unconvinced that they do), then a specific date should be set now that will give clarity on the future and concentrate minds on the task. It cannot be acceptable for urgently needed animal welfare reforms to be undermined by the inaction of a few.

Strong leadership and animal welfare require the ban on debeaking to go ahead. For the sake of millions of birds that will otherwise suffer this serious mutilation, please help us send a strong message to government that debeaking must become a thing of the past. Act now by lobbying the UK government with this eCard.

Debunking debeaking

Monday, September 14th, 2009

Imagine having the tips of your fingers cut off by an infra-red laser beam. That’s the likes of what will happen to female chicks if some leaders of the poultry industry have their way.

Debeaking is one example of how animals are mutilated to make them fit bad factory farming systems. Compassion opposes debeaking and other mutilations including tail-docking, castration, teeth-clipping, toecutting, desnooding, dehorning and debudding. Mulesing in sheep, which I also wrote about recently, is yet another example.

“Surely it is neither inevitable nor necessary to remove bits and pieces from healthy live animals to render them amenable to our purpose,” wrote Dr. Vernon R. Fowler, former Head of Pig Research at the Scottish Agricultural College in Aberdeen. Dr. Fowler made this statement in his introduction to a report written by my Compassion colleague, Peter Stevenson, in 1994. Our report, For Their Own Good, concluded that we:
“wholeheartedly agree with the Farm Animal Welfare Council’s [FAWC] statement that ‘it is difficult to give general approval to any system of husbandry that relies on painful mutilations to sustain the system’.”

Fast forward 15 years and Compassion is still fighting some within the poultry industry on the beak trimming of laying hens. This is despite a UK Government decision in 2002 banning debeaking by January 2011.
In 1994 we voiced our support for FAWC’s anti-mutilation position. In 2007 we had to take them to task for a mealy-mouthed and deeply disappointing U-turn. FAWC wrote to the Agriculture Minister urging the government to repeal the ban. Compassion made it clear that we opposed FAWC’s turnaround. FAWC subsequently softened its position to “any deferral [for a ban] should not be indefinite.” There is, of course, no better driver to solutions than an imminent prohibition. That is our goal. Compassion will not stop until we secure a victory for the hens we represent.

The reason why this is important is because beaks are to chickens what fingers and noses are to us. Debeaking a baby chick is like cutting off the finger tips of a baby human and the ends of their nose.
So, why are some in industry working hard to sabotage the 2011 ban? Why are they so keen to see debeaking remain permissible? Research shows it is redundant when strains of birds are selected who are less prone to feather pecking and cannibalism and kept in humane conditions.

The answer became apparent in the recent expose by Mercy for Animals in the United States. Their undercover investigation revealed how day-old chicks in the hatchery are snapped by their heads into a spinning debeaker machine fitted with an infra-red laser beam which automatically cuts off the tip of their beaks. DEFRA is set to review the 2011 ban on beak trimming and is looking into allowing the infra-red method. Compassion believes that infra-red is no less unsightly and is just as unnecessary a mutilation as using a red hot blade. We will fight to keep the ban in place.

As Peter Stevenson concluded in our 1994 report, “Systems which cannot be run without mutilating the animals are in need of a radical rethink. They should be modified so that the need for mutilations no longer arises; failing that, they should be abandoned.”

Any which way you cut it, including by infra-red laser beams, debeaking is unacceptable. It is time to debunk debeaking. Act now by lobbying the UK government with an eCard to DEFRA.

Mulesing

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009
Inbuilt within factory farming is the sacrifice of the individual animal and their intrinsic need. What is important is the drive for maximum profits to be made from the greatest number of animals kept at the minimum amount of expense. Consequently, solutions to factory farming’s self-induced problems are often cheap and quick.
Compassion proudly works with the farming community to help them improve the welfare standards of the animals they raise. This is why we’ve been able to achieve so much, including bans on dry sow stalls, veal crates and battery cages. Clearly, there is much left to be done in this country and Europe but also throughout the world. It is with this in mind that I am deeply disappointed with the recent decision by the Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) to abandon its commitment to a phase out of mulesing by 2010.
Mulesing involves cutting away areas of wrinkled skin from around the tail of sheep. It is now performed on something like 70 percent of Merino wool-producing sheep in Australia. This is thought to be between 12 and 15 million  sheep each year. Mulesing is a painful surgical procedure which, if it were performed on our beloved companion animals, would take place in a sterile operating theatre. Many Australian farmers, however, routinely mutilate – there is no other word to describe it – their sheep in the open air using shears which are not sterilized between animals, often without anaesthetic or analgesic.
In fairness, the industry has made progress in implementing the use of the anaesthetic, Trisolfen, which is sprayed on the wound after surgery with antiseptic to reduce the pain. However, there is no pain relieving analgesic applied before the operation and there will be residual pain after the anaesthetic has worn off and nearly half still get no pain relief at all.

Mulesing helps to prevent blowflies from laying eggs in the folds of skin, producing larvae that ultimately eat into the flesh.  If left untreated, this can kill the animal.  The farming industry calls this “flystrike.” Mulesing is a self-inflicted problem and there are practical steps farmers can take now to help stop the problem.

AWI’s statement claims alternatives to mulesing are “not sufficiently developed.” They speak of a new policy that is “step-wise, ethical and sustainable.” But they also say mulesing is now “fundamentally a transaction between buyer and seller, and will be resolved by the laws of supply and demand.” These are not encouraging words.

AWI only agreed to the 2010 deadline five years ago after an intensive international publicity campaign which helped to bring mulesing to light and embarrassed the industry to act. Compassion urges AWI to:
  1. Fulfill its commitment to end mulesing by the 2010 deadline
  2. Continue to advocate use of  the anaesthetic TriSolfen and urgently press for  licensing of the anti-inflammatory Carprofen for sheep to relieve pain
  3. Initiate more frequent shearing, crutching and closer inspections of flocks and use of chemicals to significantly avoid flystrike and the need to mules,
  4. and most importantly, advocate the breeding of sheep that are not susceptible to flystrike.

And, like AWI, we also believe in consumer choice and urge our supporters to act!

Flickr

Caged laying hensNocton bus advertisementFace of sow in barren pen with piglets behindLabel Rouge broiler chickens of both sexSow and piglets foraging and one piglet sucklingCute lambs running and jumpingMontbeliard cows on pasturePhilip at FAIBarren veal calf pens

Compassion videos

Commenting Guidelines

I want a lively blog and actively welcome comments - both for and against. Please keep them clean and respectful of others' views. We will delete any comments that contain swearing, advocate any forms of violence, are defamatory, or for legal reasons. We reserve the right to correct any misspellings/typos, and may edit comments for reasons of space.