Horse Slaughter: Regulate Instead of Terminate

By: Alison Bos

Horse slaughter is a very controversial issue that is causing major problems in our society. Horse slaughter plants in the United States were shut down in 2007 (Becker, 2010). Ever since then, the number of unwanted horses has increased, and these horses are faced with undesirable circumstances. Unwanted horses are being transported for slaughter in foreign countries or are facing cases of abuse and neglect (Lewis, 2009). This all relates back to the closing of United States horse slaughtering plants.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) wants to ban horse slaughter and the transportation of horses destined for horse slaughter completely. They have put several bills through Congress including the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act and the Equine Cruelty Prevention Act. These would end horse slaughter and the transportation of slaughter horses into other countries (Humane Society of the United States). They want to achieve this because of the way horses have been treated at the slaughter plant and on their way to the plant. HSUS does have a strong argument. Horses cannot be transported safely when crammed into large livestock trailers. There needs to be safer and more humane methods for transporting slaughter-bound horses.

The increasing number of unwanted horses is becoming a major problem. An unwanted horse can be simply defined as a horse without a permanent home (The Unwanted Horse Issue: What Now, 2008). The Unwanted Horse Coalition describes an unwanted horse as a horse that is sick, injured, old, outgrown, dangerous, expensive and/or burdensome. Groups such as the Unwanted Horse Coalition state that unwanted horses can go to rescue facilities, equine universities, therapeutic riding centers, or mounted police units. However, many of the rescue facilities are full and very few horses fit the requirements of universities, therapeutic riding centers, and mounted police programs (Heleski, 2008). This just means that horses are either to mean, injured, untrainable and/or not safe.

Ever since the U.S. plants shut down in 2007, there has been a 300 percent increase of the number of horses sent for slaughter to Mexico and Canada (Macejko, 2008). The slaughtering of horses in these countries is most likely not regulated and conditions have the potential to be much worse than they were in U.S. slaughter plants. Plus, once the animals leave the United States, we have hardly any say in how they are treated (Becker, 2010).

Another disposal option of an unwanted horse is euthanasia. This is a humane option; however it is very expensive. An approximate cost of a veterinarian to humanely euthanize a horse is around $170 (North et al, 2005). After the horse is euthanized, the owner then has to bury it. This means additional money from the owner to dispose of the horse. Plus, since there are so many unwanted horses, how would all of the carcasses affect our soil quality and groundwater? How could we safely bury and dispose of all of the bodies in a way people could afford?

As you can see, we are simply running out of options with the surplus of unwanted horses. With this in mind, the key comes to educating society about why horse slaughter needs to occur. With stricter regulations regarding transportation and treatment of the horses at slaughter plants, horse slaughter becomes a very reasonable option to dispose of the animals if done in a way that is ethical and humane. The true point is that the United States horse slaughter industry did not do a good job of treating slaughter horses in an ethical and humane way in past years. Horses HAVE to be safely transported and humanely treated, which can be accomplished through more strict regulations. Horse slaughter done humanely has the potential of having a positive impact on the horse industry. This is why we should focus on regulating United States horse slaughter instead of completely terminating it.

References

Becker, G. S. (2010, January 11). Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues. Retrieved September 22, 2010

Humane Society of the United States. (2006). End Horse Slaughter Permanently. Retrieved September 24, 2010

Heleski, C. R., Waite, K., & Reynnells, R. (2008, June 18). The Unwanted Horse Issue: What Now?. Retrieved September 22, 2010

Lewis, J. M. (2009). Proposed Horse Slaughter Plant in N. Dakota Draws Support [Electronic version]. The Newsmagazine of Veterinary Medicine, 40(3), 10.

Macejko, C. (2009). AAEP Says Horse Slaughter Would add Neglect, Starvation [Electronic version]. The Newsmagazine of Veterinary Medicine, 39(9).

North, M. S., DeeVon, B., & Ward, R. A. (2005). The Potential Impact of a Proposed Ban on the Sale of U.S. Horses for Slaughter and Human Consumption. Journal of Agribusiness, 23(1), 1-17. Retrieved September 22, 2010, from Academic Search Premier.

Unwanted Horse Coalition (2010). Retrieved September 27, 2010, from http://www.unwantedhorsecoalition.org/

PETA

 PETA

Lauren Bills

 PETA has been quoted in saying that they do not “We do not run a traditional shelter. In fact, we refer every healthy, cute, young animal we can to shelters."  ( Activistcash.com)

People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals  (PETA) was founded in 1980 and is dedicated to establish and protect the rights of animals, they operate under simple principles that animals are not for us to eat, wear , experiment on or use for entertainment (peta.org).  They are located in Norfolk, Va and have affiliates worldwide. From my reading I gathered that PETA’s goal is to give animals the rights of humans and that they should be free from harm. That being said they focus on farms, laboratories, clothing and the entertainment industry,

PETA has also been named the most successful radical organization in America. They spend less than one percent of their multi-million dollar budget helping animals (activistcash.com). Between 1998 and 2009 they have killed approx 24,000 animals-  that’s six animals a day and have found homes for only eight (petakillsanimals.com). These animals are caged in Norfolk, Va. They are put to death and stored in a large walk in freezer until the crematory comes to get them, these services cost PETA $32 million dollars to dispose of them. The freezer used to store these animals was used as a tax write off for PETA.

PETA classifies humans as another animal species and that neither is more special or important than the other and compare farmers, trainers and researchers to cannibals, and slave owners. They have also been known to damage property, and place bombs in vehicles and research  This group of extremists have who are all about protecting animals, often breaking into fashion shows to throw blood on fur-wearing models, liberating lab animals, or showing gory videos outside of fast food restaurants.  PETA collects millions of dollars in donations that they pretend to use to care for animals. They target our children as early as elementary schools with violent and graphic anti- meat and anti-milk propaganda. They do this without parental consent. PETA also boast as having the largest youth membership of over 800,000 members they lure young children by using graphic comic books, toys, etc .(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.com)

My thoughts on this are mixed I don’t want animals to be neglected or abused. But I do think animals are here for a reason just as we are. The one question I m left with is how does PETA and other similar organizations get away with these practices of unmoral acts that they do not only to animals but to the public by not giving us the whole story?

Works cited:

Activistcash.com

consumerfreedom.com

Collins, Kristin. "PETA foes salivate at cruelty trial." Lifestyle Magazine 24 Jan. 2007:

Petakillsanimals.com

Peta.org

Animal Cruelty First Hand

By Jerrid Cunningham

Animal cruelty is a very touchy subject for everyone. Different people have different outlooks on what animal cruelty is. Animal cruelty stated Gaynor Borade, “the subsequent standard of infliction that causes animals distress is unwarranted.”

 I believe that animals should be provided for, when it comes to food, water, shelter, and attention medically if need be. I have worked with large animals, most of my life. I understand that horses, cattle, and other livestock can be very temperamental. For the past two years, I have been working with bulls, and I have seen a lot of things that have really opened my eyes to animal cruelty.

When I began at my place of work, I started to notice some things about how the animals were being treated. Many of the bulls that are stationed at the facility are worth a lot of money to the owner, and the business I work for. The animals that I work with are normally owned by other people that bring the animal in and leave it for a period of time to be taken care of. These farmers are putting their trust in the facility to take care of their bull. While working, I have seen the animals treated well, but I have also seen the animals treated very cruel.

In my line of work, we collect semen from bulls. As the workers, we are to bring a bull from its pen to the collection room. Moving a large animal, such as a bull can be difficult sometimes by yourself. We are given a herding stick, that is about four feet long to help move the bull so that we are not taking risks of getting too close and getting hurt. Moving a bull from barn to barn isn’t a hard thing to do, when the bull is cooperating with the person that is handling the animal. The problem comes, when the bull begins to be stubborn (charging someone, or trying to gore the person, etc.) at this point I believe that the bull should be dealt with in a manner that is civil but forceful to show the animal that you are dominant. What I have seen, is not civil treatment to these animals. There are bulls at the facility, that have challenges with walking from barn to barn due to medical problems (foot problems, old age, former broken bones, etc.) that workers have beaten (leaving whelps, or even cutting the skin) because the animal does not walk fast, or at the speed that the person wants them to. I do not agree with beating an animal, if the animal has not done anything to be punished for.

Other acts of cruelty I have witnessed are beating dogs. The dogs are used for work purposes; they are for bringing up steers, or helping out with a Holstein bull that decides he is going to plow a person into the ground. The two dogs have been beaten with sticks, hot-shots, kicked for running off, and even thrown into the side of vehicles. I witnessed one dog thrown through the air, kicked, shocked by a hot shot, then picked up by the collar and slammed into the side of a truck door. All of this was done because the dog wondered off of the property for an hour or so.

I have witnessed workers taking sticks and jabbing the end of the stick into the eyes of bulls, because the person thought it would be fun to do. I do not agree, nor will I put up with these kinds of actions done to animals for the entertainment of a bored teenager. I do not believe in animal cruelty, I love animals, and respect them. I do believe that if an animal such as a bull or a dog is harming a person, then the animal should be taken care of with all necessary means. No animal deserves to be treated cruel for no reason, or for the entertainment of a person.

It is stated on the company website, that the facility is designed for the best care of your bull. The pens have natural flooring, outside runs and good handling facilities. A well stocked lab and a professional staff help to provide a high quality, high conception product. Most of the staff are qualified for handling animals, but to say that they are all professional, would be a lie. If the statement is saying that the facility is best designed for the “Best” care for your bull, then why as a worker there do I feel that these animals are being treated very poor? Why are these animals being beaten for not moving fast enough? Why are the animals being stuck in the eye with pointed objects? Why are the dogs being thrown into the sides of vehicles? I do not believe that is the best treatment for the animals.

Sources:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-cruelty.html

http://genex.crinet.com/page201/GENEXSTRAFFORD

Happy Cows

By Jessi Sokolic

“The rule to be observed in this stable at all times, toward the cattle, young and old, is that of patience and kindness. A man’s usefulness in a herd ceases at once when he loses his temper and bestows rough usage. Men must be patient. Cattle are not reasoning beings. Remember that this is the Home of Mothers. Treat each cow as a Mother should be treated. The giving of milk is a function of Motherhood: rough treatment lessens the flow. That injures me as well as the cow. Always keep these ideas in mind in dealing with my cattle.”     - W.D. Hoard, 1885

            This quote was taken from the dairy industry’s leading publication, Hoards Dairyman. The publication found it’s beginning on January 23, 1885, when William Dempster Hoard, considered the “father of American dairying”, wrote his first issue of a “journal devoted to dairy farming.” While this quote was spoken 125 years ago, it still rings true in the dairy barns of today. Today’s dairymen are just as concerned, if not more concerned, with the health and well being of their herd. With advance improvements in research and technology, we have learned that the smallest of stressors can effect milk production. To decrease the amount of stressors the dairy cow comes into contact with on a daily basis, we have made several adjustments in their surroundings.

            The Animal Care Manual, issued by The National Dairy FARM Program, states that the use of sunshades, sprinklers, misting fans, dietary alterations and wind breaks are all used in helping to control temperature variances in the dairy cow. The range of temperatures during which an animal uses the minimum amount of metabolic energy to control its body temperature is known as the thermo-neutral zone or the comfort zone. It is in this comfort zone that milk production is most efficient because more energy can be used to produce milk as opposed to controlling body temperature.

            We also use various bedding materials in dairy barns to maximize the comfort of the dairy cow.  Under ideal conditions, a dairy cow will lie down to rest on an average of 14 hours a day. Dairy farmers want to make sure that their herds have plenty of clean, fresh, deep bedding to do so. The most popular type of bedding currently used is sand. Research is still being done, but it is thought that sand is cheaper than most organic bedding, offers better footing for the animal, has less bacterial growth and appears to cause even hoof wear resulting in less trimming.

            Last, but not least, it is part of the dairy cow’s natural behavior to groom itself. They will, often times, do this by scratching their heads against walls or troughs, which causes extra wear and tear on these objects and could pose an injury risk to the cow if a sharp object is present. In an effort to prevent injury and decrease wear and tear, dairymen are introducing mechanical brushes or “cow brushes” to their herds. Rather than attempting to explain how a cow brush works, I would recommend watching this video: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpjCQD8ynZE

                In a study done by the Journal of Dairy Science, it was shown that all but one cow in a group that had access to the mechanical brush used it. The mechanical brush increased scratching or grooming time by 508% and introduced the opportunity for scratching areas other than the head, including hard to reach places like their necks, backs and tails. This study has shown that the use of “cow brushes” satisfies a cow’s natural instinct to groom or scratch and reduces boredom in the barn.

            I doubt that William Hoard would have ever imagined that his words would still be referred to when mentioning the treatment of dairy cattle today. As the times have changed, the standard remains, “Treat each cow as a Mother should be treated.” I believe Mr. Hoard would be very proud of the changes and advancements that we have made in today’s dairies, as well as very hopeful for things yet to come.

References:

http://www.hoards.com/

http://www.nationaldairyfarm.com/sites/default/files/AnimalCareManual_JUN_VIEW.pdf

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/dairy/facts/info_sandbed.htm

http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302%2807%2971716-2/fulltext

To Buck or Not to Buck

Jayme Morrison

To Buck or Not to Buck

Raising bucking bulls is an upcoming trend in the rodeo world. Bucking bulls can be used at a variety of events, including rodeos, bull rides, or as registered bucking stock futurities. Despite the future lives of these bulls, the most important question to consider for various animal welfare groups is this: As they are raised, are these animals being treated in a humane way?

Today, caring for these animals is top priority in most rodeo associations, including the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA). An example of this can be found in a committee of the annual Cheyenne Frontier Days, which is one of the largest PRCA-sanctioned events in the country. The committee states, “We care about all of our athletes, the two legged ones, the four legged ones, and anyone who claims other wise just doesn’t know us.” (cfdrodeo.com/animal-care)

Popular guidelines used in most rodeos, including the Cheyenne Frontier Days, provide for the welfare of the animal. Examples include using dull rowel spurs, which assures that the portion of the spur that comes in contact with the animal is dull. If contestants fail to use dull rowels they can be fined or disqualified. Another common rodeo guideline is having a stretcher present at all rodeos, which provides the ability to humanely transport any injured animal if needed. (cfdrodeo.com/animal-care)

Another concern, especially with bucking bulls, is the use of “hot shots,” which are

electric prods that many stock contractors and ranchers use while working with the animals every day. There are PRCA guidelines on the use of these prods that state the animal can only be touched in either the shoulder or on the hip and that the prod shall not exceed the length of 12 inches.(palmspringswest.com/prca)

All PRCA-sanctioned events must follow the rules governing animal welfare, and failure to do so will result in fines up to $500 per animal for a period of 48 hours following the first performance for each animal. (palmspringswest.com/prca)

The 2004 animal welfare code also states that the veterinarian, animal

welfare officer and rodeo organizer will be the three persons in charge of the welfare of all animals competing in the rodeo. And along with being in charge, the veterinarians must be in attendance throughout the rodeo. Veterinarians must exam all animals prior to the start of the rodeo and at the end of each day that the rodeo is going on.

But despite these attempts at humane treatment, there are still many negative feelings about the rodeo world, and for good reason. The 2001 PRCA injury survey from bornfreeusa.com claims there were 25 animal injuries requiring veterinarian care out of 67 monitored rodeos out of a total of about 700 PRCA rodeos. The website also states that in 2000, there were 38 injuries that were reported out of the 57 monitored rodeos.

Finally, some animal welfare groups, such as the Vancouver Humane Society, oppose

rodeo events because of the belief that they use fear, stress and/or pain to make these rodeo animals perform. They also explain that the only reason that a bull will run out of a chute into an arena full of people is because they have either been kicked, shocked with electric prods or have even had their tails twisted. The Vancouver Humane Society also explains that a flank strap is used on bulls during a rodeo to make the bull buck, and until the flank strap is released, the bull will buck.

In conclusion, there are many positive as well as negative attitudes about the welfare of these animals that participate in these various rodeo events. I believe that if all animals are being treated in a humane way, the general public needs to let the tradition of rodeo continue for centuries to come.

Works Cited

www.cfdrodeo.com/animal-care.aspx

www.palmspringswest.com/PRCA

www.Vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/rodeo

Animal Welfare Code of Welfare, 2004

The World Equestrian Games

By Claire Dohmen

           The World Equestrian Games are to be held in Lexington, Kentucky, September 25 – October 10.  The games bring the world together with many people’s love and wonder of horses.  The games show the world the variety and strengths of the different horse breeds.  Some of the events to be held are dressage, eventing, driving, reining, jumping, endurance, and a few more.  This year the agricultural world is lucky in that Alltech is sponsoring and hosting the games. 

Alltech is a company based on research in yeast fermentation and enzyme technology.  They are leaders in animal nutrition and aquaculture. Alltech is an international company that searches for natural solutions for an animals’ health and wellbeing.  Alltech not only has an Equine Village but they also have the Alltech Experience. 

The Alltech Experience pavilion will include:

1.       Brewing and distilling featuring Kentucky ale

2.      Energy, algae, and carbon sequestration

3.      Aquaculture including salmon, tilapia and shrimp

4.      The future of nutrigenomics

5.      Equine feed line

6.      Scale model biorefinery

7.      Solid state fermentation plant

8.     Cogeneration plant with wind mills, and solar panels

9.      Algae farm

10.  Herd of cattle

11.   There will also be an area dedicated to farming, food production and the environment specifically for kids. 

Equine village will be a center for horses. 

1.       Breed Organization

2.      Discipline Organizations besides the ones shown at the World Equestrian Games

3.      Demonstrations that exhibit the equine industry

The agricultural community has been given a chance to show the positive side of agriculture.  The world can see the games both on television or in Kentucky.  We will have many representatives of the industry present and this is the best time to show everyone who we are. 

http://www.alltech.com/

http://www.alltechfeigames.com/

Muirhead, Sarah.  Alltech to use World Equestrian Games to educate about agriculture.  Feedstuffs.  September 20, 2010.  http://feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=F4D1A9DFCD974EAD8CD5205E15C1CB42&nm=Daily+News&type=news&mod=News&mid=A3D60400B4204079A76C4B1B129CB433&tier=3&nid=EEDAADC1AE85471F992C1C0445FC669D

The Bulls are Back in Town

By: Cody McCann

For the past three days, JQH Arena, usually reserved for University sporting events and major concert performances, has been filled with spectators of a different sport—Bull Riding. This year marks the second appearance of the PBR’s Built Ford Truck series on MSU’s campus.  

J.B. Mauney, Chris Shivers, and Luke Snider were among those who received top billing with another set of athletes—the bulls.  This event brings to mind a question for each individual to answer: should we be breeding and using animals for the purpose of entertainment? Some will say yes. Others will say no, but hopefully the reasons for these feelings are just.  In the case of bull riding, whether you do or do not find it entertaining to watch rider and bull compete in a very raw form, you may have some concerns about the welfare and management of the animals. 

According to the PBR’s own website, www.pbr.com/about/sportinfo/bulls.cfm:

1 bull sustains a minor injury at every 8 events;

1 bull will sustain a career ending injury at every 100 events;

4 bulls have been euthanized as a result from injuries sustained over the 960+ PBR events since 1992;

3 bulls have sustained life threatening injuries but were taken to large animal hospitals and lived extended periods of time – up to 2 years; and

A bull in the PBR has a .004% chance of sustaining one at an event.

Are those numbers acceptable? You tell me.  Comment below!

The PBR has an incentive to maintain good animal welfare due to the high value of the bulls. Each animal could range in value from $10,000 to well into the six figures.

Each animal receives 25-30 lb of grain a day along with 20 lb of high quality hay, receives vitamin shots on a regular basis, and a regularly subjected to health inspections.  Each stock contractor has a local vet on call for the bulls.

On the other side of the issue, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) both oppose this type of event.  The HSUS states, “[that it]opposes rodeos as they are commonly organized, since they typically cause torment and stress to animals; expose them to pain, injury, or even death; and encourage an insensitivity to and acceptance of the inhumane treatment of animals in the name of sport. Accordingly, we oppose the use of devices such as electric prods, sharpened sticks, spurs, flank straps, and other rodeo equipment that cause animals to react violently, and we oppose bull riding.” It then goes on to list many other rodeo events

So, when the next bull riding event comes to town, will you dawn your hat and boots to watch the cowboys take on the bulls?

Not All Salmon are Created Equal

by: Heather Hegel

As a response to depleted ocean fisheries many people turned to farmed fish to satisfy their seafood cravings. Fish farming has many obvious benefits, such as taking heat off of ocean fisheries and making fresh seafood more accessable to people who may not live right on the ocean, but one must be careful which farmed fish they choose to consume.

During the past twenty years worldwide salmon production has increased by a factor of fourty. Salmon has major health benefits and is a very popular seafood choice. The American Heart Association recommends eating fish to help prevent heart disease. Salmon is also one of the most popular examples of contaminants in farmed fish. The amount of contaminants, such as PCB's, found in a lot of farmed salmon is signifigantly higher than in wild salmon. Science magazine states that the health risks involved with eating farmed Atlantic salmon may very likely out-weigh the benefits. Natural salmon fisheries, though, are depleted and harvesting this crop wild poses many hazards to the ecosystems they live in. Salmon farms are also ecologically dangerous. This poses the question: Should one eat farmed salmon or wild salmon?

Another thing to take into concideration is where the salmon is coming from. Salmon are found in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Most farmed salmon is Atlantic salmon. This is the variety of salmon one needs to avoid eating; regardless where in the world it is farmed. European salmon have signifigantly higher amounts of toxins than North or South American salmon.

Many of these toxins are PCB’s, or polychlorinated biphenyls. PCB’s are mixtures of  over 200 chlorinated compounds. They are oily liquids or solids used often as lubricants or coolants in heavy machinery. PCB’s are a major problem in many fish populations because they bioaccumulate. About ninety percent of PCB’s found in salmon come from the water they are housed in.

Despite all these risks, there are salmon that are safer to eat. Less common Pacific salmon does not have the same health risks or enviornmental pressure as Atlantic salmon. Coho or Silver salmon farmed in the United States and several varieties of wild caught Alaskan salmon are good low risk salmon choices. Risk assesment of many different seafood choices can be found at http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx?fid=133.




Sources:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5655/226

http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx?fid=133

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=15802

http://www.healthcastle.com/farmed-salmon.shtml

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=farmed+salmon

Cloning Farm Animals

By Weston Paulik

What do the bucking bull Panhandle Slim, the cutting horse Tap O Lena and the show pig, Miss Pauline all have in common? If you said that there are exact genetic copies of them walking around right now you are correct, all of those animals have been cloned. I recently had the opportunity to attend a beef cattle ultrasound training course, and while I was there I got to meet a gentleman by the name of Dr. Brian Bruner. Dr. Bruner works for ViaGen in Austin Texas and he has assisted in cloning a large number of animals from lab rats to rodeo bulls. While we were eating lunch he discussed cloning, and I found out that it is growing in popularity with livestock producers. According to ViaGen the most commonly cloned animals are cattle, horses, hogs, dogs and cats.

The process of cloning actually sounds relatively simple on paper. According to Dr. Bruner the first step is to collect skin cells from the animal to be cloned. This can either be done by swabbing the tailhead or the inside of the animal’s ear. Next the lab will need to get an unfertilized egg; these are usually collected from meat processing companies. The egg will then have the nucleus removed and the donor animals DNA will be placed in the enucleated oocyte (an egg with no genetic material). Then a current of electricity will be passed through the egg which causes the outer membrane of the cells to fuse with the inner membrane of the egg, this process is known as electrofusion. Following this step the egg is incubated and an embryo will form. After incubation the embryo is transferred to a recipient animal and sixty days after the animal is born it is delivered to the owner. Bovance a partner with ViaGen had this picture that I felt was very helpful in showing the steps of cloning an animal.

http://www.bovance.com/science.html

According to Dr. Bruner there are several issues that are affecting the cloning industry. One big problem with cloning horses is the ban on horse slaughter. Right now ViaGen is having problems getting unfertilized eggs to place the skin cells in. They either have to wait for a horse to die of natural causes or import them from other countries such as Canada and Mexico. Another problem that cloning is facing is the idea that milk and meat from cloned animals is bad for you. According to a study by the Food and Drug Administration there is no evidence that cloned milk or meat is bad for you. However, according to ViaGen the cloning industry has agreed not to allow any products from cloned animals to enter the food supply for several years. The reason that Dr. Bruner was attending the ultrasound class was to learn to ultrasound cattle for rib-eye area, percentage of intramuscular fat, rump fat, and back fat to see if these values in the cloned animals are similar to the original animal. Another huge issue the cloning industry is facing is the ethics and fairness of showing cloned animals. For example if someone showed a steer one year and won with it, in theory they could continue showing that animal in the same show for as long as they wanted to. While the animal may have a slightly different appearance, genetically it is the same animal. According to Dr. Bruner this is quite a hot topic within the livestock genetics industry. In my opinion I see no problem with someone cloning a steer and showing it as a bull, or even showing it as a steer at a different show. I would disagree with showing an exact copy of the same steer at the same show every year though. Another problem with cloning is the high percentage of animals that require assistance giving birth to clones. According to Dr. Bruner only twenty percent of cloned animals are born without assistance, most clones require a Cesarean Section to be born.

I also learned from Dr. Bruner that while in theory cloned animals are only genetically similar many clones show similar “personality” traits. For example he told a story of a cow he cloned that would always stop at the exact same place in the alley leading up to the chute. It was not because she was spooked by something, because there were no shadows there and nothing hanging there. So when he ran all eight of the clones through the chute they all stopped in the same place and would not move. Another example is a horse that was cloned. The trainer worked out a trick with the original horse and after it died the owners wanted to clone it. When the trainer walked up to the clone for the first time he gave the horse its cue to do the trick and the clone did the exact same trick. While it has not been scientifically proven that cloned animals have the same “personality” traits, I thought it was interesting and worth including in my blog.

In closing cloned animals are a bigger part of the livestock industry than most people realize. While it may take a while to get the ethics and other issues in cloning ironed out, I believe it will become a large portion of the livestock industry. Science has shown that there is nothing dangerous about consuming meat or dairy products from clones. Maybe one day we will be eating meat from a cloned pig or drinking milk from a cloned cow.

References

Associated Press. "FDA: Food From Animal Clones Safe to Eat." Press release. ViaGen in the News. 31 Oct. 2003. ViaGen. 19 Sept. 2010 <http://www.viagen.com/news/fda-food-from-animal-clones-safe-to-eat/>.

Bovance. "Science." Bovance : : Advancing Genetic Opportunity. 19 Sept. 2010 <http://www.bovance.com/science.html>.

 Bruner Phd, Brian. Personal interview. May 2010

ViaGen. "Equine." ViaGen The Cloning Company. 19 Sept. 2010 <http://www.viagen.com/benefits/equine/>.

ViaGen. "Porcine." ViaGen The Cloning Company. 19 Sept. 2010 <http://www.viagen.com/benefits/porcine/>.

The Good and the Bad

By Adam Miller

Most times when animal welfare and the NFL are mentioned in the same sentence people are talking about Michael Vick, however Will Witherspoon, middle linebacker for the Tennessee Titans, is trying to change that.  Witherspoon owns, Shire Gate Farm, a farm in Owensville, Missouri and is striving to raise his animals with the highest of animal welfare standards in mind. Witherspoon is raising his cattle according to AWA (Animal Welfare Approved) standards and was awarded their seal of approval on July 20, 2010.

“The quiet and somewhat solitary lifestyle of farming can seem at odds with Witherspoon's day job of being a linebacker, a position where the job description is, basically, put yourself in the path of a really big and powerful player while he tries to run right through you. However, it's the transition from the thunderous, bone-crushing ferocity of football to the lush green peace of Shire Gate Farm that Witherspoon values.  Shire Gate Farm is not just a business--it's also a getaway for Witherspoon, his wife Rebecca and daughters Layne, Maya and Shaye. "Shire Gate is a total escape for us. It's a place where my daughters and I can work with the animals and the land. I use the companionship of the animals and the beauty of the land to refocus myself after the demands of playing football. Shire Gate is our retreat from the world.”

Witherspoon is just one of many positives in animal welfare that never makes the front page news. Examples like Michael Vick have put a stigma on professional athletes and the same is being done to local farmers. One bad egg can ruin it for the whole community and anti farming organizations are quick to focus on the bad and ignore the good.

Reference
http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/2010/07/21/nfl-football-star-will-witherspoons-biggest-win-is-the-awa-seal/

Backyard Barnyard

Backyard Barnyard

By Tanner Clark

Eggs are all the rage, with the recent Salmonella outbreak over half a billion eggs nationwide had been condemned as possibly being contaminated with Salmonella. With this outbreak over a thousand people have become sick with numbers expected to rise. This outbreak has been the largest egg recall in United States history (MSNBC Associated Press. 2010).

With this outbreak many Urban City Citizens have decided to start raising their own chickens; with the idea of producing farm fresh health eggs for their own consumption. This is a great idea, allowing urban citizens to become more active in agriculture and learning more about food production. This is very important in today’s era where many people that live in town have not had an agriculture background in two or three maybe even four generations. This allows people to become more involved with agriculture and food production, so they are better able to understand large production agriculture (DVM. Dr. Jason Salchow).

When people have decided to start raising their own eggs there are a little more to it than just buying a chicken and getting an egg. There are a few things that you might want to keep in mind when picking out a chicken for your backyard barnyard. There are different breeds of chickens for different purposes, such as meat birds and layers. Meat birds have been bred over the years for meat consumption and not to lay eggs, whereas layers have been bred to lay eggs. When picking chickens you would want to buy a chicken that lays eggs but also has enough meat that you can eat them, if so desired. Some chickens that would be great for both would be chickens like the Buff Orpingtons and the Silver Laced Wyandottes.

Now, you have your chickens, you have your coop, now you’re almost ready for production in your backyard barnyard. For your chickens to be able to reach full potential they will need to reach all their nutritional needs. This can be reached by feeding a formulated feed made for laying chickens, you might also talk to you local feed store or veterinarian. Now that your chicken is producing eggs, these eggs are not guaranteed to be “bacteria free”. Salmonella may still be in your eggs, this can happen when the egg comes in contact with fecal matter that could have come from the chicken. Salmonella can also infect your eggs by chickens that appear to be in great health that have infected ovaries. If this happens the eggs can become contaminated before the eggs have formed a shell, according to FSIS.

So what is the best way to insure that your eggs are healthy to eat? Wash your hands and eggs with soap and water before cooking. After you have done this it is best to cook your egg well done where it is at least 160 degrees Fahrenheit. Doing this will greatly decrease your chance of getting food poisoning (The State Journal).



References:

Citynet. "Keeping Your Food Free of Salmonella - State Journal - STATEJOURNAL.com." West Virginia Business News Journal
The State Journal - STATEJOURNAL.com. 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=86035.

Dr. Jason Salchow. Personal interview. 13 Sept. 2010.

Life Science. "How Does Salmonella Get Inside Eggs? - Yahoo! News." The Top News Headlines on Current Events from Yahoo! News - Yahoo! News. 18 Aug. 2010. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100818/sc_livescience/howdoessalmonellagetinsideeggs.

"Recall Expands to More than Half a Billion Eggs - Health - Food Safety - Msnbc.com." Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- Msnbc.com. 20 Aug. 2010. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38741401/ns/health-food_safety>.

Got Spinach?

By: Laura Correnti


Calcium can be found in both liquid form and leaf form. Milk and spinach are two excellent sources of calcium that are needed for strong bones and teeth. However, I read many articles published by the PCRM (the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) in which they are trying to switch people from milk to other means of calcium for developing stronger bones.

In the article ‘PCRM Week’: The Dairy Attack, on The Center for Consumer Freedom website, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine was quoted saying, “feeding milk to children is unnecessary, and that there are better ways, such as, kale, tofu, turnip greens or spinach, for kids to get the calcium they need.” Now don’t get me wrong, but I can’t think of a child that would give up a glass of cold milk for a steaming cup of spinach. However, that is exactly what parents should be doing according to the PCRM. To reach this result, PCRM relied on only a few dozen of the nearly 1,000 studies that were conducted on milk and bone health, while ignoring that a child would have to eat eight cups of spinach, to replaces the calcium that is in one small glass of milk. According to the website ProCon.org, one cup of skim milk has 200 more milligrams of calcium content per measure than one cup of turnip greens, showing that the same amount of milk and greens both supply adequate calcium but milk has more per serving.

PCRM was quoted saying, “increased calcium intake, especially from dairy products, increased bone density loss in childhood adolescence. Low milk consumption at currently recommend intakes is likely to be beneficial for bone health at all stages of the life cycle.”So according to the PCRM, the glass of milk that I had for dinner every night since I was four, will cause my bones to become less dense and I will have bone health issues later in life. As reported in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition in 2009, “women that were given 1,200 mg of calcium and 300 IU of vitamin D from dairy products everyday had developed stronger bones in the hip and spine than woman who stuck to their normal diets.” Now it seems that that glass of milk all those years ago will do me some good after all.

According the PCRM website in an article called Parents Guide to Building Strong Bones, orange juice and apple juice are excellent substitutes for milk. However, in the 1998 Journal of Dentistry, tooth enamel erosion was caused by the consumption of orange juice and other fruit drinks containing high fructose corn syrup. Even though PCRM says that orange juice is good, dentists say that it causes tooth enamel loss, which once the enamel is gone, it is does not come back.

In an article by Chris Woolston, a writer for the LA Times, entitled “Too much milk?” on latimes.com, PCRM said that milk was a particularly dangerous part of typical western medicine. The PCRM website even states, “Saturated fats in dairy products increase the risk of heart disease, and natural hormones in milk encourage cancer of the breast, prostate and ovaries.”Some studies have been conducted to see if there were higher than-expected rates of ovarian cancer in people that drank milk, nothing has been turned up thus far. A study was done by the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) in which 325,000 women, in 10 countries, showed that there was no evidence that animal products, in the form of: eggs, meat and milk, raised the risk of ovarian cancer. Similarly, the NIH-AARP diet and health study did a long-term study of nearly 500,000 older Americans and which published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2009, which found no link between the intake of dairy products and cancer. “It was found that dairy lowered the risk of developing colorectal cancer in both male and females.” Dairy products not only do not cause cancer risks, they have been shown to lower risks of cancer.

Neal Barnard was quoted from his book, Food for Life: How the New Four Food Groups Can Save Your Life saying, “Feeding kid’s meat and milk is a form of child abuse.” If that is so, then my parents abused my brothers and me for more than eighteen years by making sure we had a glass of milk at dinner, and three meals consisting of all of the food groups.

References
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2785-pcrm-week-the-dairy-attack
http://www.latimes.com/news/health/la-he-milk-20100712-2,0,5598126,print.story
http://www.spinachwords.com/bone_health.shtml
http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/building_bones.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science
http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000659
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4213-milk-malice-too-extreme-for-anti-milk-extremist

New Primate Species By: Dana Willis

The Arunachal Macaque(macaca munzala) monkey was unknown to scientists until 2004, when they discovered it. This new species is a large brown monkey or also known as primate. It is a macaque monkey and they are native in North-Eastern India. Its species name comes from “Munzala”, Which means monkey of the deep forest. Scientists from the Nature Conservation Foundation in India discovered it.
 
 
It was also the first species of Macaques to have been discovered since 1903. The Arurnachal Macaque has a very dark face and lives at very high altitudes in the forest, between 2000-3000m. Therefore, this makes it one of the highest dwelling primates. Scientists say that this type of monkey is also belongs to the sinica species group. Many other macaque monkeys also follow under this species group like the Assamese Macaque (M. Assesamenis), the Tibetan Macaque (M. Thibetana), the Bonnet Macaque (M. Radiata), and the Toqye Macaque ( M. Sinica).
 
 
The scientists from the Nature Conservation Foundation say that the Arurnachal Macaque is physically similar to the Assamese Macaque and the Tibetan Macaque, while they are genetically closer to the Bonnet Macaque of South India. This type of Macaque is in the Animalia Kingdom, it belongs to the Chordata Phylum, it is in the Mammalia Class and its in the Order of primates. A recent study from the Nature Conservation Foundation in India showed that this species may be very highly endangered in some parts if India.

Why we need to hunt endangered species

Derek Hedges


Grey wolves are an animal that is a shining symbol of using the Endangered Species Act to restore an animal once nearly exterminated by viable numbers. Yet this is not without consequences. Wolves have few natural enemies and their population in an area can grow rapidly.



As prey thins in remote areas where wolves hunt they tend to move to more agricultural areas. While they do not often attack livestock, when they do the results can be devastating to the livestock owner. Wolves hunt in packs and have a tendency to hunt big game such as deer or elk that the hunting enthusiast desires. These are two reasons why many favor the tinning of the grey wolf population.


Having gray wolves in natures ecosystem however is not a bad idea. Wolves help to control big game populations in areas that they are so heavily populated that food supply is affected. Also wolves tend to weed out the weaker animals, helping the remaining animals to improve genetically.


The discussion should not be about whether to hunt gray wolves or not as this is something that makes a lot of sense. Rather is should be about which wolves in which areas should be hunted to strike a favorable balance between wolves, nature, and mankind and about what types of methods should be used to control the gray wolf population.

http://www.lenconnect.com/outdoors/x907384214/wildlife-agencies-seek-expanded-gray-wolf-hunting?pl
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/travel-outdoors/focus-earth-wolf-hunting.html

Why endangered species need hunted

Derek Hedges


Grey wolves are an animal that is a shining symbol of using the Endangered Species Act to restore an animal once nearly exterminated by viable numbers. Yet this is not without consequences. Wolves have few natural enemies and their population in an area can grow rapidly.



As prey thins in remote areas where wolves hunt they tend to move to more agricultural areas. While they do not often attack livestock, when they do the results can be devastating to the livestock owner. Wolves hunt in packs and have a tendency to hunt big game such as deer or elk that the hunting enthusiast desires. These are two reasons why many favor the tinning of the grey wolf population.


Having gray wolves in natures ecosystem however is not a bad idea. Wolves help to control big game populations in areas that they are so heavily populated that food supply is affected. Also wolves tend to weed out the weaker animals, helping the remaining animals to improve genetically.


The discussion should not be about whether to hunt gray wolves or not as this is something that makes a lot of sense. Rather is should be about which wolves in which areas should be hunted to strike a favorable balance between wolves, nature, and mankind and about what types of methods should be used to control the gray wolf population.


sources
http://www.lenconnect.com/outdoors/X907384214/wildlife-agencies-seek-expand-grey-wolf-hunting?pl
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/travel-outdoors/focus-earth-wolf-hunting.html

A Reason Why Trapping Should Remain Legal

There are several reasons why trapping should remain legal. There is one reason that I have personally encountered the expansion of our urban cities into the rural wooded areas.

       I encourage you to look at a satellite image of where you live today, and compare it to one taken ten years ago. I'm sure you will be surprised at how much everything is expanding. Animals aren’t just going to stop reproducing because we want to build a mall or another apartment complex. I have managed the same land for over fourteen seasons now and I have seen how our development, miles away from where I trap, has affected the ecosystem on the land that I manage.

            This is mostly apparent in the coyote populations throughout southwest Missouri. The predators are forced to find food in more urban areas with larger populations of people and pets than ever before. Without proper management practices coyotes with mange and other diseases could start affecting us and our pets. Another example of this can be seen with the smaller predators such as Raccoons, Opossums, and Red Fox. They are being seen hit on the side of city roads more frequently. They are trying to avoid predatation from the larger coyotes and bobcats. This can affect us because the diseased furbearing animals will begin competing with our pets for food.

            In 1996, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies began one of the most ambitious research projects in the history of the conservation movement: a program to develop Best Management Practices (BMPs) for regulated trapping. The program aims to evaluate animal welfare, identify efficient tools and techniques, and develop recommendations for state fish and wildlife agencies to consider as an element of their wildlife management programs. Regulated trapping is a necessary and effective wildlife management tool, and wildlife professionals across the country believe that trapping BMPs will ensure the continued improvement of this management technique (Best Management Practices). These are what I believe make trapping a tool that landowners can use and know that they are taking care of their predator problems efficiently.  

Works Cited

Best Management Practices . 10 9 2010 <http://www.fishwildlife.org/furbearer_bmp.html>.

Eggs Over-Easy, Sunny Side Up, or Caged?

By Emily Grady

Whether you like your eggs over-easy or not there is nothing easy about the current egg debate going on in the United States.  Recently the nation recalled a total of 550 million eggs potentially infected with Salmonella Enteritidis, the nation’s largest recorded egg recall. (Weise, 2010) The story has been published across the nation and as a result has sparked a hot debate over the use of caged or cage-free eggs.  The exposure of filthy condition at two Iowa egg farms has caused many animal rights groups to point the finger at industrial animal agriculture.

As in most cases involving some sort of factory farming animal neglect the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was quick to issue their own press release relating to the story.  In the press release the HSUS’s vegan public health expert. Michael Greger called for egg farmer’s to go “cage free” in order to reduce the salmonella risk. The HSUS’s press release stated, “Every scientific study published in recent years shows that confining hens in cages results in significantly increased Salmonella risk, including a 2010 study that found 7 times greater odds of Salmonella Enteriditis contamination in operations caging hens.”

Mr. Gregor apparently wasn’t listening in grade school English when we were taught never to use the word “every” unless we mean it. Rarely are scientific studies unanimous in their results. In fact studies on salmonella in cage-free vs. caged flocks were not unanimous. In a 2008 report from the World’s Poultry Science Journal stated, “Contamination of eggshells with aerobic bacteria is generally higher for nest eggs from non-cage systems compared to nest eggs from furnished cages or eggs from conventional cages.”  (De Reu et al. 2008)

The HSUS only specifically cite one study in their press release. The study mentioned is from the Veterinary Record Journal.  In the study the author’s mention that, “compared to the other production types, cage production was characterized by larger flock sizes. Organic flocks were on average of the smallest size, whereas the barn and the free-range standard flocks were of low to medium size. Consequently, cage production, as well as a larger flock size, was associated with a higher risk of positivity. But it was not possible to determine which of these two factors was a true risk factor for positivity.” They also emphasize, “the importance of maintaining good farm biosecurity, hygiene practices and pest control in reducing levels of Salmonella on layer farms.” (Snow et al., 2010)

 Why is this outbreak of Salmonella so important however? There have been multiple outbreaks in the past. In 2008 the FDA issued a recall of jalapenos. (FDA, 2008) In 2009 they issued a similar recall on peanuts. (FDA, 2009) Now, in 2010 the Salmonella culprit is eggs. The HSUS is using this outbreak to help fuel the fire on the debate over caged chickens. Their definition of “humane” is the big issue, not the Salmonella. 

According to the HSUS official website, “The HSUS promotes eating with conscience and embracing the Three Rs—reducing the consumption of meat and other animal-based foods; refining the diet by avoiding products from the worst production systems (e.g., switching to cage-free eggs); and replacing meat and other animal-based foods in the diet with plant-based foods.” (HSUS)

Although they promote a vegan lifestyle not everyone wants to give up animal based products. Are cage-free eggs the best option though? The American Veterinary Medical Association has published a comparison of different hen housing systems including “battery” cages, enriched cages and free-range systems. The enriched cages were found to have lower rates of mortality and disease among the birds compared to the free-range system.  (AVMA, 2010) Other supporters of the enriched cages include The American Humane Certified program and animal welfare specialist Temple Grandin. The American Humane Certified program, which is run by the American Humane Association took the position that enriched cages are “humane” and Temple Grandin agreed that the enriched cages are a big improvement over the old ones. These cages were found to let hens express their natural behaviors, just like the HSUS has said is one of their goals. (American Humane Association, 2010) (Smith, 2010)

However, HSUS still doesn’t think that the enriched cages are good enough and are pushing for completely cage-free production. Current states feeling pressure are California and Michigan who have had recent votes regarding the issue. But is cage-free production HSUS’s long-term or short-term goal. If they accomplish getting legislation passed that would limit operations to only cage-free operations will they stop there or is this a stepping-stone for their goal of no more egg production period. After all, according to their website the only “humane” diet is a vegan one.

Whether you like your eggs over-easy or sunny side up this debate is going to affect the entire nation.  It’s no longer just an egg; it’s an egg from a caged bird or a non-caged bird and everyone’s opinion matters. The HSUS will have you believe that free-range is the best way to go, while countless studies show that that is no more or less effective than enriched cage systems. It’s about the balance between chicken welfare and our standard of living.  This is a massive industry for our country and we need to protect it by making sure a system is in place that is not only sustainable, but also ensures a quality, safe, humane product. 

References:

American Humane Association, . "American Humane Approves Enriched Colony Hen

Housing As Humane Alternative To Conventional Cages." The Humane Touch.

American Humane, 18 Jun 2010. Web. 6 Sep 2010.

<http://thehumanetouch.org/news-events/139-american-humane-

approves-enriched-colony-hen-housing-as-humane-alternative-to-

conventional-cages>.

"An HSUS Report: Food Safety and Cage Egg Production." The Humane Society of the

United States. The Humane Society of the United States, 2010. Web.

6 Sep 2010.<http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/

report_food_safety_eggs.pdf>.

AVMA, . "A Comparison of Conventional Cage, Furnished Cage, and Non-cage

(Barn and Outdoor/Free-range) Systems for Housing Laying Hens."

American Veterinary Medicine Association. N.p., 2010. Web. 6 Sep 2010. <http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/cage_noncage_systems.asp>.

De Reu, K., W. Messnes, M. Heyndrickx, T.B. Rodenburg, M. Uyttendaele and

L. Herman (2008). Bacterial contamination of table eggs and the influence of

housing systems. World's Poultry Science Journal, 64 , pp 5-19

doi:10.1017/S0043933907001687

FDA, . "Peanut Products Recall." U.S. Food and Drug Administration. N.p.,

23 Mar 2009. Web. 6 Sep 2010. <http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/

majorproductrecalls/peanut/default.htm>.
 

FDA, . "Salmonella Saintpaul Outbreak." U.S. Food and Drug Administration. N.p.,

 08 Aug 2008. Web. 6 Sep 2010. <http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/

publichealthfocus/ucm179116.htm>.

HSUS, . "Humane Eating." The Humane Society of the United States. N.p., n.d. Web.

6 Sep 2010. <http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/eating>.

Smith, Rod. "Enriched cage gets consumer nod." Feedstuffs. N.p., 10 May 2010. Web.

6 Sep 2010. <http://fdsmagissues.feedstuffs.com/fds/pastissues

/fds8219/fds03_8219.pdf>.

Snow, L.C., R. H. Davies, K. H. Christiansen, J. J. Carrique-Mas, A. J. C. Cook, and

S. J. Evans (2010) Investigation of risk factors for Salmonella on commercial

egg-laying farms in Great Britain. Veterinary Record Journal.

http://birdflubook.com/resources/Snow_2010_VR_166_579.pdf

Weise, Elizabeth. "Egg farmers: Good managing can help control salmonella."

USA Today. USA Today, 3 Sept 2010. Web. 6 Sep 2010.

<http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/food/safety/2010-09-03-egg-farms-

salmonella_n.htm>.