Management of America’s Wild Horse population

By Derek Hedges

The wild horse, what vision of America’s frontier past is more symbolic.  Who amongst us can not remember watching classic western of the American cowboy in or childhood.  The wild horse herd is one of the few remaining direct living links with the western frontier and all its history.  Unfortunately, the maintaining of these herds and their management has become an issue between horse lovers and the Bureau of land Management, the government agency directed by a law in 1971 to manage the wild horse herd.

                Wild horse herds are found on scattered public lands throughout the western United States.  Wild horse activist believe that they should be allowed to roam and breed at will and that any capture for adoption should be returned to their range if not adopted within a given time frame.  They also think that grazing permits for other livestock on public lands held by ranchers should be reduced to allow for all wild horses.  Under no circumstances do they feel wild horses should be killed.

                The Bureau of Land Management was designated by a 1971 law to oversee the management of the nation’s wild horse herd and its 20 million acres of habitat.  They are also required to keep herd under certain population to protect the habitat of public lands and to keep the horses healthy.  The 108th congress authorized the Bureau of Land Management to sell any wild horses caught and not adopted to be sold without restrictions.

                The area of conflict is the Bureau of Land Management will remove excess horses to achieve a herd with the desired management level for an area.  The wild horse herd grows at an annual rate of 20% therefore many horses must be removed and sent to holding pens for adoption, unfortunately many horses are not adopted and a General Accounting Office Report in 2008 found that the Bureau of Land Management had a budget of $64 million and spent $37 million of this to hold captured animals.  This is not sustainable.  It is also not possible to just reduce the number of other livestock grazing on a permit because they are not on the land year round and horses are which allows them to due greater harm to the habitat.

                One can see that this is an issue that has no answer that will completely satisfy both sides.  The wild horse activist has a vision of keeping most of these wild herds virtually untouched by outside forces.  The Bureau of Land Management however, must face the reality of a limited amount of financial and physical resources.

                I believe that the Bureau of Land Managements actions on this matter are the more realistic.  Virtually no wild animal in the United Sates on public lands is allowed a population increase that damages its habitat.  Horses running on land will do more damage then permitted grazing animals that are not there all through the season so decreasing these permits is not a long term solution.  The wild horse activist needs to work with not against the Bureau of Land Management to ensure that Americas wild horse herds are sustained at a manageable level.  Other options to control the herd need to be found.  These wild horses are truly a link to Americas past and it’s really important to find a solution to manage them in a sustainable way.

work Sited

http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/sp/1/11223/pid/11223/accessed11-10-10

http://www.katu.com/news/106886403.htmlaccessed11-10-10

http://www.blm.gov.nv/st/en/fo/wfo/blmprograms/wild_horses_and%20_burros/calico_moutains_complex.htmlaccessed11-10-10

Pet Therapy, Does it actually work?

By Dana Willis

What is pet therapy? Does it actually work? Why is it necessary?

These are all great questions but some are hard to answer and many will have different opinions about this subject. Pet therapy is a wonderful thing and it helps provide security and comfort to people in many ways.

Pet ownership, has shown to reduce stress, requires less medical care, adds years to your life, and people just enjoy life more. Pets make individuals take care of them, its gives them something to live for when they have suffered through so much, like cancer, a death, a divorce, and many other things. 

Research has shown that heart attack victims that have pets live longer, and even just watching a tank of fish swim around may help lower blood pressure. Pets let us be ourselves around them, animals don’t care what we look like or make fun of us, and they just love and accept us for who we are. Animals bring out the nurturing instinct in our bodies.

These animals that are trained and put into pet therapy are wonderful animals. They are very well behaved and are trained by certified companies or individuals. There are so many amazing stories about pet therapy animals, helping different people and patients. They bring so much joy to so many individuals. There are so many great results, and they are increasing everyday! Improving ones social, emotional, physical, and cognitive well being are just a few things pet therapy animals due.  

Pets truly help heal all different kinds of patients, especially elderly people suffering from loneliness. Pets take peoples mind of what they are truly sad or lonely about, and cause laughter and a sense of security at times. Animals are very loving creatures they can take someone’s focus off what they are suffering from and put it on them.

For more information;

http://www.holisticonline.com/stress/stress_pet-therapy.htm

http://www.sniksnak.com/therapy.html

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/helps-119059-pet-spectrum.html

Yummy Antibiotics

By: Laura Correnti

There has been a lot of talk about antibiotic use in meats these days and how humans are becoming resistant to certain types of bacteria because of the use of antibiotics in meat. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are strongly urging meat producers to cut back on how much antibiotics they give to their animals (CBS News). However, does it matter if there are antibiotics in meat or not? Now a days, it seems if a person goes to the doctor with a sore throat and a runny nose, the doctor will prescribe antibiotics to clear it up when simple vitamin C and rest will work. So who is really responsible for the antibiotic resistance in the humans?

The FDA says that antibiotics are “posing a serious threat to human health”, so farmers should cut back on their antibiotic use in animals only giving them when they are sick and under the supervision of a veterinarian (CBS News). That could be a good idea, but what farmer can afford to pay the veterinarian bill every time one of his cows went down. According to the Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, the average income of a farmer is 27, 375 and with a eight dollar veterinarian house call bill plus medicines for every time a animal goes down is far too much for a farmer with a limited income (Sanford and Luther).

There are programs that allow the use of antibiotics for both subtherapeutic and therapeutic treatment purposes in pork that requires producers to follow label directions and withdrawal use of antibiotics before slaughter (Iowa State). No subtherapeutic after the pigs are 40-100 lbs allows the use of antibiotics in young pigs solely to enhance production and to treat disease (Iowa State). With this program the levels of antibiotics in feed decreases and allows for a 60-days withdrawal and the half-life of the antibiotics results in meat that is completely free of antibiotics at slaughter (Iowa State). The program is very vigorous and requires the producer to pay attention to outside diseases and managing stress. Without the introduction of new pathogens into the farm from visitors and keeping the pigs comfortable and free of stress then the program works great and there is no antibiotics in the meat to be passed to humans.

Antibiotics and antimicrobials are an important and necessary tool that when used correctly can protect the well being and health of an animal. For cattle, keeping the cows healthy is a must since many feedlots and pastures share a common water hole and feed troughs. If one cow is sick all the cows can become sick. National Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) programs support the use of antibiotics and antimicrobials if they are used so that the animal is treated properly and the antibiotics are not being over used (Peck). The BQA says that antibiotics are okay to use if they aren’t important in human science and to use a narrow spectrum of antimicrobials whenever possible (Peck). Also, antibiotics should be limited to prevent or control disease and should not be used to improve performance.

The repercussions of not using antibiotics in livestock are too great. There are too many diseases that affect livestock not using antibiotics when necessary could kill off a whole herd. Some diseases include contagious bovine pleuropnemonia, foot-and-mouth disease, and black leg (Phillips et al). Diseases like these can be treated with antibiotics and if they are not treated right away then they can spread and infect other members in the herd. Using antibiotics is the best route when protecting a herd from spreading disease. Antibiotics can be given shortly after birth and then given as boosters to prevent infection (Phillips et al). 

Antibiotics are useful drugs. They prevent infection and can keep animals healthy when they are used properly. If antibiotics are used properly they are out of an animal’s system before slaughter and are at little risk to humans. Antibiotics are used to keep animals healthy, they may enhance the size of the animal but that is the last thing on a farmers mind. A farmer would want five healthy moderate cows than one super beefy cow.

Citations

Peck, Clint. Prudent Use of Antibiotics in Beef Production. Montana State Univeristy. 29 Sept 2009. http://beef.unl.edu. 

Phillips, Ian, Mark Casewell, Tony Cox, Brad DeGroot, Christian Friis, Ron Jones, Charles Nightingale, Rodney Preston and John Waddell. Does the use of antibiotics in food animals pose a risk to human health? A critical review of published data. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. Issue 53; 28-52. 4 Dec 2003. http://jac.oxfordjornals.org.

Sanford, Scott and Luther Tweeten. Farm Income Enhancement Potential For Small, Part-Time Farming Operations In East Central Oklahoma. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics. Dec 1988. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu.

http://www.cbsnews.com

http://www.ipic.iastate.edu

The Branding Iron

The Branding Iron

            The branding iron is the permanent cowboy trademark.   Cattle branding has been around for thousands of years and it is a tool that ranchers use to show ownership of an animal.  Using a branding iron to mark ownership has been around for at least 4,000 years.  There have been inscriptions in Egyptian tombs found that showed branded cattle as early as 2,000 B.C.  Branding is one of the oldest and most permanent ways to identify cattle.  The International Livestock Identification Association considers livestock brands to be as important as the return address on an envelope (Missouri Department of Agriculture).

            Branding in America was adopted from Mexico where Mexican ranchers would mark their cattle with a brand that was their family coat-of-arms.  Today brands can mean several different things.  They might be a part of a name or maybe just a unique design. According to a website called kids cowboy by John R. Craighead Company, Inc., the following is a good rule of thumb on how to identify and read a brand today:

Brands are read from left to right, from the top down, or from outside inside. A definite method of identifying characters has been established. If a letter or symbol is made backwards from its normal position, it's read as a “reverse F” or whatever other letter it might be.  A letter partially over on its face or back is said to be “tumbling.”  If a letter lies horizontally on its face or back, it is called “lazy.”  Letters with a curving flare at the top and rounded angles are called “running."  Adding a dash to the left and one to the right at the top, you have a "flying" letter.  Add legs and it becomes a “walking” letter.  A letter placed so that the bottom touches the inside of a curve is said to be “rocking.”  Curves not attached to letters are known as “quarter circles” or “half circles,” depending on the arc. Letters or symbols formed together are called “connected,” except when one is below the other, then the lower symbol is said to be “swinging.” In registering brands, owners sometimes omit the “connected” or “swinging”.  Besides the traditional letter and figure brands, there are some marks known as “character brands.”  Common picture brands are the pitchfork and the key. The reading of picture brands depends upon the owner’s interpretation, and it takes an expert to identify some of the more complex brands.

            Today there are thousands of cattle brands registered in the United States.  After you have a brand registered under your name it is your responsibility to make sure the brand is applied properly and is readable.  A Brand is applied to the skin when it is hot, about the color of the fire ashes that you might use to heat your iron.  Red hot irons are to hot and will over burn the animal and make a poor brand.  A good iron’s letters will be around one-quarter inch thick and about four inches tall, so it can retain the heat as you are using it and make a legible brand.  For about the last 20 years or so they have started to make electric branding irons that do a great job of retaining the proper heat and work well for fast multiple brandings where electric is accessible.

            Branding practices have recently been questioned concerning hide damage.  Branding cattle damages the quality of the hide that may be later used for leather goods.  A study done by the National Animal Health Monitoring System in 1992-93 and determined that there is a deduction in price on hides that have been branded, how much depends on brand location.  Cattle branded on the rib cage lost on average $13 per hide.  Cattle branded on the hip or shoulder on lost $9 on average.

            In all states brands must be recorded in the state that they are going to be used in so no others can us that same brand.  Once that brand is recorded it provides ownership and is considered legal evidence in a court of law.  In the state of Missouri and most other states a individual can apply for a new brand or a brand that has not been in use for at least five years.  The state will reject any brand that is the same as a brand that is already registered within the state.   The brand will be assigned one of three spots the hip, rib, or shoulder of the right or left side; If the brand is not in the correct spot than it cannot be enforced.  In the state of Missouri it is a felony to brand someone else’s animal or to deface or obliterate any livestock brand.  It is also illegal to brand any livestock with a brand that has not been properly registered within the state.  Livestock can also be branded and many times are branded with numbers for identification purposes within the herd.  Brands that are used for identification with in the heard are not registered and therefore cannot be considered proof of ownership and will not hold up in the court of law.

            Once the brands are recorded by the Missouri Department of Agriculture they are considered personal property of the owner.  Brands can be sold or transferred but must be registered under the new ownership of the brand.  Within the state of Missouri brand registration fee is $35 and transfer fee is $10.  Once you own your brand it is good for five years before it needs to be renewed.  Currently in the state of Missouri there are around 5,000 brands recorded.

                                                 Work Cited

Agriculture, M. D. (2010). Livestock Branding. Retrieved November 28, 2010, from http://mda.mo.gov/animals/livestockbranding.php

Branding Practices in Beef Cow/Calf Heards. (1993). Retrieved November 8, 2010, from www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/beefcowcalf/downloads/CHAPA_is_Branding_pdf

Craighead, J. R. (n.d.). The History of Cattle Brands and How to Read Them. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from http://www.kidscowboy.com/cattle-brands.html

Missouri Elk Restoration

Missouri Elk Restoration

Scott Mackey

At what point do you stop reaching back into the past, dragging those things that have gone before back into the present? This is a serious question when it comes to the conservation of wildlife, and one that is hotly debated every time a new candidate for reintroduction or management comes to light. The newest issue in Missouri, and one which is now scheduled to take place, is the reintroduction of Cervus Canadensis, or Elk. Elk have been missing from the Missouri Ozarks since they were hunted to extinction in the area around 1865. (Elk) In the last ten years there has been an influx in interest concerning the reintroduction of a small population of these deer; it was met with both positive and negative opinions. In an interest to the animal welfare of these animals as well as those they might interact with the restoration plans put forth by the Missouri Conservation Commission must be reviewed.

            The first important feature of the proposed plan concerning the wellness of the animals, and the wellbeing of humans and their possessions as well is the location of the proposed restoration area. The area, located in 3 southern counties of Missouri, is 79% public land or privately owned land open to the public. Also, the proposed area encompasses 346 square miles of which there is only 33 miles of paved highway. This area therefore limits the amount of effect the Elk might have by encroaching on livestock as well as the danger to motor vehicles and drivers. This increases the animal’s ability to live naturally without much interference from humans outside of the restoration program.

            The best measure the program is taking to improve the wellness of the animals though is a soft release and two tests for illness. The soft release consists of a period of time in large pens to acclimate the Elk to their new Missouri habitat. The testing for illnesses takes place in both the donor state and in Missouri, assuring that no disease is present at the time of capture or acquired in transport. These two measures assure a relative amount of comfort for the animals which obviously contributes to their overall wellness.

            Proponents of the Missouri Elk Restoration Program are generally those people who like to see things put back into place. People who pride themselves on returning our fair Ozarks to the way they once were. Those who are generally against the plan are those with agriculture interests who deem the Elk to be competition to their livestock or pests to their crops. The Conservation Commission has taken great steps in their planning to monitor the Elk and their travel and also, if it happens to occur, to assist landowners with damages caused by the Elk wandering prior to their removal and transportation back to the defined Elk range. With the program being effectively and stringently carried out I believe the wellness of the animals will be top quality and the people will appreciate the returning of a native to the Ozarks.

Works Cited

1.)    "Elk Restoration in Missouri." MDC.MO.GOV. Missouri Conservation Commission, 2010. Web. 7 Nov. 2010.<http://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/resources/2010/10/elk_restoration_in_missouri_commission_report_oct_1_20101_0.pdf>.

2.)    "Missouri Elk Reintroduction Feasibility Study." Missouri Department Of Conservation. Missouri Department Of Conservation, Nov. 2000. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. <http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/159.pdf>.

3.)    "Over 100 attend public meeting in Van Buren on elk reintroduction." Southeast Missourian. Ed. Paul Davis. N.p., 26 Aug. 2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2010. <http://www.semissourian.com/story/1659289.html>.

Trick-or-Treat: Food Monsters

By Emily Grady

Halloween is one of the best holidays of the year for children. Kids get to dress up in fun costumes, listen to ghost stories, and eat lots of candy! Parents usually tell terrifying stories about the evil cavities that may ensue if their children eat all their candy and dentists hand out toothbrushes. However, there’s a new boogeyman on the block this year and he’s dressed: as a food activist?

With the clamor about children’s health and the obesity rate in American children being almost twenty percent it is inevitable that this topic would come up near Halloween, which is one of the least healthy holidays of the year (CDC, 2010).  In the past the food boogeyman has put a hex on products like high fructose corn syrup, soda and other sweet sensations.

There is a cloud of misconception that concerns high fructose corn syrup. As it states in its name, it is made from corn. What could possibly be scary about corn? It is used in all sorts of products, but somehow it has been determined that it is the creeper in the closet making American children fat. However, as always science tends to ruin the mystique concerning these myths. This time the mythbuster was the American Medical Association who stated, “it does not appear to contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners (AMA, 2008).” The American Dietetic Association also chimed in saying, “Most scientific experts now agree that high fructose corn syrup and sucrose produce similar effects on human metabolic responses (ADA, 2008).” Well now the boogeyman is out of the closet, but as we all know, there might be a monster under the bed as well.

The monster under the bed in this case is soda.  Somehow this innocent and refreshing beverage is spewing a blood bath the likes of which have only been seen in movies. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with the help of his cohort New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley have launched a war against food and drink with soda at the center of it. It’s a blood bath the likes of which only Freddy and Jason could have attained. But these two manage to make soda consumption more gruesome than eating maggots on a ghost ship.  Last year the New York City health department launched an advertisement comparing drinking soda to drinking liquid fat (NYC Health, 2010). However, their advertisement was about as realistic as Frankenstein’s monster. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by six Harvard doctors surveyed over 14,000 American children and concluded that their data “did not offer support for the hypothesis that snacking promotes weight gain (NEJM, 2007).”

Unfortunately, these monsters are nothing compared to aliens! It seems that all we hear these days is that the American people need to go green, well personally when I think of green people I think aliens. In the movies brainwashing is a very popular tactic used by the aliens, as it seems to be in real life as well. Organic food groups have pushed for years saying that their product is healthier and doesn’t have the toxins that commercial agriculture leaves on the food. However, this statement is absurd as Lady Gaga’s fashion statements. In the words of Roberta Flack, chemicals in food are not “Killing me Softly.”

Organic food promoters such as the popular restaurant Chipotle promote “food with integrity.” They prefer using “meat from animals raised without the use of antibiotics or added hormones…organic and local produce…and dairy from cows raised without the use of synthetic hormones (Chipotle, 2010).” This sounds so healthy, but I dare you to eat an organic apple without washing it first, who knows maybe the apple Snow White ate was organic. The Food Standards Agency in Britain released a review earlier this year concerning the nutritional differences between organic and conventionally produced food which found “that there are no important differences in the nutrition content of, or any additional health benefits deriving from, organic food when compared with conventionally produced food (FSA, 2010).”

The difference between conventionally produced food and organic food is that organic food is supposedly pesticide free. However, if organic producers can’t use pesticides then what do they do to keep pests out of their crops? Well here’s a real fright, Guatemalan coffee farmers sometimes use fermented urine to deter pests (Avery, 2001). I hope you enjoy that hot cup of coffee because I think it’s a bit too “natural” for my taste.

As we learned in “War of the Worlds” one of the most unique things about this planet is its bacteria. As humans we have had to adapt to the climate and as such our bodies have become pros at removing toxins. Our livers and kidneys were specifically engineered to filter toxins out of our body. The world is full of toxins that we come into contact with every day. We shouldn’t be worried about eating high fructose corn syrup and drinking soda, we should be exercising and making sure we get plenty of sleep, ironic coming from a college student I know. Vegetables are not to be feared and “The Day of the Triffids” is not coming.

This Halloween we should have a clear conscience about eating that ever so delicious Snickers bar and handing out candy to trick-or-treaters. Who wants to be known as the neighbor giving out the raisins? Although, that neighbor handing out rice cakes and tofu may get a few extra eggs with their breakfast the next morning, unfortunately they will probably be on his house.  Either way eating healthy is a great goal to have, but just because there is a stereotype surrounding a type of food does not mean it is true.  Research food correctly and read labels for more than the calories alone. And for all those who still love organic food I suggest you watch the movie “Motel Hell,” that is some truly “all-natural” sausage they make!

ADA. 2008. “High Fructose Corn Syrup and Weight Status.” American Dietetic

Association. http://sweetsurprise.com/sites/default/files/

ADAHotTopicHFCS.pdf

AMA. 2008. “AMA finds high fructose syrup unlikely to be more harmful to health

than other caloric sweetners.” American Medical Association.

http://sweetsurprise.com/sites/default/files/AMARelease6-17-08.pdf

Avery, Alex. 2001.  “The Deadly Chemicals inorganic Food.” New York Post.

            http://www.cgfi.org/2001/06/the-deadly-chemicals-in-organic-food/

CDC. 2010. “Childhood Overweight and Obesity”. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html

Chipotle. 2010. “Food with Integrity?” Chipotle. http://www.chipotle.com/

en-US/fwi/fwi.aspx

Christakis, Nicholas A. and James H. Fowler. 2007. “The Spread of Obesity in a Large

Social Network over 32 Years.” N Engl J Med 2007; 357:370-379

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa066082

FSA. 2010. “Systematic review of differences in nutrient content of organically and

conventionally produced food.” Food Standards Agency.

http://www.food.gov.uk/science/research/choiceandstandardsresearch/

consumerchoicestandards/l01list/organicreview/

NYC Health. 2010. “Pouring on the Pounds.” New York City Department of Health

              and Mental Hygiene. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F4t8zL6F0c

Confinement Housing in Swine

            Stephanie Lacy

         Farm animal welfare has recently come to the public’s attention. Many are claiming that the animals are treated cruelly and inhumanely. Much of the current focus is on confinement housing systems in poultry, swine, and veal calf production (Swanson, 1995). A confinement housing system is one in which many animals are kept in small pens in very close quarters. Systems like these have many benefits, some examples include: higher production, elimination of parasites, and a cheaper production rate. Initially they were designed for the comfort of both the pigs and their handlers during extreme weather conditions (Extension, 2001).

            Farrowing crates, small pens used to house sows during the birthing and raising process of their piglets, have recently been banned in many places. Such places include the United Kingdom, the European Union, and even the states of Florida, California, Arizona, and Michigan (DEFRA, 2009). Animal activist groups such as the humane society of the United States (HSUS) and people for the ethical treatment of animals (PETA) make claims such as farrowing crates deny the sows of natural maternal instincts, and that it impedes their natural instincts and social interactions (HSUS, 2009).

            Common arguments for farrowing crates include: decrease in the loss of piglets and lower production costs. However, many recent studies have been conducted comparing outdoor production to indoor production in the swine industry. Many of these studies have come to the same conclusions: outdoor housing can be equally productive. The rate of loss of the piglets in outdoor housing did not exceed that of the indoor housing. The outdoor housing also allowed for social interaction which, from observations, seemed to limit the aggressiveness in the animals (Johnson et al, 2001). The indoor production systems do however enable a producer to house more sows per acre, and therefore, an outdoor production system, in order to be completely comparable, must have a method for housing more sows (Extension, 2010).

            Common alternatives to farrowing crates in swine production include: turn around pens, sloped pens, family pens, werribee farrowing pens, ellipsoid farrowing crate, and the outdoor English style farrowing hut. Turn around pens are triangular shaped pens that allow the sow to turn around. Such pens have been noted to slightly reduce still births and rather significantly reduce weaning mortality. Sloped pens are pens with a sloped floor. The sloped floor forces the sow to stand and lie down more carefully and the sow often lays with her teats facing the creep area encouraging suckling. Family pens allow the sow to move further away from her piglets and also to interact with other sows all at her own will. Providing bedding would make this housing system the most sufficiently enriched environment. Werribee farrowing pens contains a nesting area and a non nesting area but takes up nearly twice the amount of floor space of the original farrowing crate. The ellipsoid farrowing crate is only slightly larger than the standard farrowing crate and provides room for the sow to turn around as well as allows more interaction between the sow and her piglets. The outdoor English style farrowing pen is the only outdoor pen in this list. While there was no significant difference in still births and weaning mortality the sows housed in the outdoor pens showed more natural activity than those in any of the indoor pens (Extension, 2010).

            In conclusion, while there are still uses for the traditional style farrowing pens, the only set difference from other production styles is the number of animals per square foot. Production systems other than farrowing crates can provide the same weaning mortality rates while perhaps satisfying the public and the animal rights activists that are currently protesting.

 

Works Cited

Swanson, J. C. Farm Animal Well-Being and Intensive Production Systems. J Anim Sci 1995. 73:2744-2751.

Johnson, A.K., Morrow-Tesch, J.L., McGlone, J.J. Behavior and performance of lactating sows and piglets reared indoors or outdoors. J Anim Sci 2001. 79:2571-2579.

“Housing Options for Swine Farrowing: Considerations for Animal Welfare and Economics.” Extension. Extension, 2010. Web. 31 Oct 2010. <http://www.extension.org/pages/Housing_Options_for_Swine_Farrowing:_Considerations_for_Animal_Welfare_and_Economics>

“Factory Farming.” Humane Society of the United States. HSUS, 2010. Web. 31 Oct 2010. <http://www.hsus.org/farm/multimedia/gallery/pigs/repeated_pregnancies.html>

“Swine Farrowing Units.” Pork Industry Handbook. Pork Industry Handbook, 2010. Web. 31 Oct 2010. <http://agebb.missouri.edu/swine/pdf/PIH-10.PDF>

“EU ban on sow stalls - implications for procurement of pork and pig meat products.” Department for Eviornment, Food, and Rural Affairs. DEFRA, 2010. Web. 31 Oct 2010. <http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/publicsectorfood/documents/psfpi-advice-note081222.pdf>