Look your food in the eye
By Brian J. Gerloff
| Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Last November, voters in the state of
How we react
In animal agriculture, a common reaction to these pressures for change in husbandry practices has been to dismiss them. We question the motivation, the agenda of the people who criticize us, and dismiss their claims and concerns. Why? Because we believe that they have an ultimate, underlying goal of eliminating our chosen way of life — animal agriculture.
We seem to spend more time attacking the messengers and less time thinking about the message. I believe this is a mistake. Clearly, a referendum on gestation stalls could not have passed if supporters were limited to just those people who want to eliminate pork from their diets. In fact, many conservative newspapers and politicians endorsed the referendum, and it passed with 62 percent of the vote. And our usual arguments, based primarily on economics, seem less powerful when opposed by resonant emotional appeals.
Listen and respond
What is needed instead is a willingness to actively listen to concerns raised by critics of some current practices — and listen without preconceptions. We need to objectively look at our animal-husbandry practices as an outsider would. And we must look beyond the emphasis of profit and performance.
As an industry, we can sometimes be insensitive to common practices that arise to improve profits or adapt to confinement. An example would be the length of time it took the veterinary profession to oppose the practice of starvation-induced-forced molting of chickens to induce them to lay eggs. This practice of withholding food and water from hens until they lose their feathers strikes most of us as clearly inhumane, but it was not addressed in a policy statement by the American Veterinary Medical Association until 2005.
Now, think about some of the practices used on your dairy. Would someone unfamiliar with modern dairy production question some of the practices used on your farm? If you overcrowd free-stalls or dock tails, chances are some consumers would question the need for these practices.
Several years ago, an essay by Michael Pollan, professor of journalism at the University of California-Berkeley, appeared in the New York Times Magazine, in which he wrote of the need to be able to look our animals in the eye. To me, this has become the perfect metaphor to approach working with animals for milk and meat. Are we being responsible stewards of their lives, which they are sacrificing for ours? Can we look them in the eye, assured that we are doing our best as their caretakers?
Most of us are in this business, at least partly, because we love working with animals. But sometimes economic or time pressures result in gaps in what we would like to do and what we actually do as animal caretakers.
In the future, consumer demands and requirements will likely limit our production options. But ultimately, the responsibility to improve our industry is our own. Each of us needs to be able to look our cows and calves in the eye, confident that we are providing them a good life.
Brian J. Gerloff is a veterinarian and operates Seneca Bovine Services in Marengo, Ill.
