Five Freedoms

Help Support Steer Planet:

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
Animal welfare is becoming a major issue in the US and Canada, and North America is generally thought to be behind Europe and Australia in these issues. The 5 freedoms were developed and modified by the UK Farm Animal Welfare Commision...what do you think?

Assessment of Animal Welfare: the Five Freedoms

In 1965, when the British government first reviewed the welfare of farm animals in intensive husbandry systems they proposed that all farm animals should have the freedom to 'stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs'. These minimal standards became know as the five freedoms.

In 1993, the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council agreed that the original definitions concentrated too much on space requirements and on one aspect of behavior (comfort seeking) to the exclusion of everything else that might contribute to good animal welfare, like good food, good health and security.

The five freedoms now read:

  1. Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.
  2. Freedom from discomfort - by providing a suitable environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
  3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
  4. Freedom to express normal behavior - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animals own kind.
  5. Freedom from fear and distress - by ensuring conditions that avoid mental suffering.

According to Dr. John Webster: (The researcher who helped develop the Five Freedoms, and Professor of Animal Husbandry, University of Bristol) -

    "When put to work by comparing different housing systems, the five freedoms are an attempt to make the best of a complex situation. Absolute attainment of all five freedoms is unrealistic. By revealing that all commercial husbandry systems have their strengths and weaknesses, the five freedoms make it, on one hand, more difficult to sustain a sense of absolute outrage against any particular system such as cages for laying hens or stalls for sows and easier to plan constructive, step by step, routes towards its improvement."

Farmers have a responsibility to consider the welfare advantages and disadvantages of new technologies. Explore the following example: sometimes when considering the quality of life of an animal, there are certain trade-offs that need to be considered. Take, for example, laying hens that are raised to produce eggs. They are kept in wire cages that can restrict movement and other natural behavior, like nesting, perching and dust bathing. There is evidence that this lead to frustration.

However, before domestication, hens lived in social groups of about six hens with one rooster. During the day they would shelter under bushes to seek protection from predators. Staying in small groups and in a small area allowed hens to know their companions and know where to find shelter when faced with a threat.

Research in Europe and Canada has proven that with four to six birds in each cage, each hen gets the food and water it needs without having to fight for it. When birds are in large, open aviary or free-range flocks, disease and cannibalism is a serious problem. In the cage systems with mesh floors, waste falls away from the birds. This means clean birds, clean eggs and a cleaner barn. A clean environment makes it tough for disease and parasites to live. The birds are provided with a stable environment with clean food and water. They are protected from predators, disease, parasites and fighting.

Currently, researchers are looking at the development of enriched cages, that take advantage of the benefits of cages (small group sizes, food safety and hygiene) and combining these with the benefits of open housing by adding nest boxes and dust bath locations.

Because of this recent work, countries like Sweden that had banned the use of cages, has now rescinded the ban in favor of enriched cages. (from the Alberta Farm Animal Care(
[/b]
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
i long for the day when all animals can live like humans so we can quit projecting.  that said, i find it interesting free range can be stressful and that being around humans is desirable.  wonder what behaviors we can eliminate by doing that?  it's a little idealistic, well intentioned, but i'm reminded of .......
soylent green.  expressing stress is a normal behavior.  i understand the unecessary stress such as poor facilities, mud, rousting, etc.  nice to see some revisiting on some issues, though i always fear foie gras police.  in SF, they are considering a tax on caffeine and high fructose corn syrup.  the problem is these people over reach and it takes too long to rein it in.  on the other hand, it takes too long to rein in the abusers.  see other threads. ;)
 

Doc

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
3,636
Location
Cottontown, Tennessee
This is coming from the same people who won't let you have firearms & we sent packing a little over 200 years ago because they were trying to force us to do things their way without us  having a say so.
 

Show Heifer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
2,221
If we don't take care of our animals, and punish those that don't it won't be long before those have no idea how to raise livestock are going to be telling us how to raise them!
It is time we  open our eyes, take a stand, vote, and do the right thing. Then we won't have to worry about the "fringe" animal rights groups.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
america is already gone, it must be retaken.  the schools, at least in CA, are more concerned about teaching your kid that the terms husband and wife are offensive in kindegarten (senate bill 777) and mandating health care for citizens but paying for it for illegals, taxing high fructose corn syrup with the same sin tax idea as tobacco and spirits and no one knows or cares this is happening.  they are more concerned about consuming.  you better wake up and convert people rather than preaching to the choir.  practice it every day, or it's gonna be over by the time your kids can vote, which they will vote against you because the schools told them too.  there may be alpha males left, but they are in the crosshairs and dwindling fast and are more endangered than delta smelt.  nice knowing you, perhaps there will be one left for my daughter to marry, of course CA politicians would view that as discriminatory and must be outlawed as it's offensive.
 

Jill

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
3,551
Location
Gardner, KS
I think I'm in the corner that is still raising the Alpha Male, call it having children late in life.
I understand that these fringe groups have a VERY large lobby and a ton of money backing them up, they are fueled by misguided fanatical folks with nothing better to do.  Animals are just that, they are not pets, they are not humans, and while I am not for abuse, there needs to be a reality check somewhere.  For the most part people don't have a clue where their food even comes from much less what is good for the animal it came from, they believe what the media tells them and make decisions based on those twisted facts.
 

CAB

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
5,607
Location
Corning,Iowa
Jill, what you just said, is what I was trying to say yesterday on the other thread. The 500 litters quota, was just a # that I put up there to represent personal experience, so that you know what you are talking about. Let people that know about the subjects through personal, hands on, experience dictate what is best for whatever situation that it may pertain to. Most of what makes this country so great is that our founding fathers had personal experience about what they thought needed to be addressed in the constitution. I think that a lot of our problems that are in front of us as a nation & people are caused b/c the 3rd- 4th generation politicians are buying their elections and have NO clue what we as a blue collar nation are trying to survive with. Again Jill you said it much better. Cab
 

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
SD said:
Crap. Crap!  And Mega Crap!!

                              ....... Mr. Jameson (from Spider-man)

SD (and others) what exactly do you disagree with in the 5 freedoms? 

    1.Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.
  2. Freedom from discomfort - by providing a suitable environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
  3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
  4. Freedom to express normal behavior - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animals own kind.
  5. Freedom from fear and distress - by ensuring conditions that avoid mental suffering.

Doc - never really thought of it that way - interesting perspective
CAB - Jill may have said it better but you said it blunter!! that is OK in my book  ;)-

 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
others) what exactly do you disagree with in the 5 freedoms. Doc - never really thought of it that way - interesting perspective -

    1.Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.
foie gras, it's numbers are low as it is, yet we have to outlaw it.
  2. Freedom from discomfort - by providing a suitable environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
subject to interpretation here.  bull studs, rest homes for people, lots of gray, i get leery when this gets put into law
  3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
brucellosis in bison, tb in deer, E. coli in cattle, what are the limits, again, i get leery when this gets into law
  4. Freedom to express normal behavior - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animals own kind.
this is changing all the time and when oversubjected to people wanting to outlaw eating meat i am leery.
  5. Freedom from fear and distress - by ensuring conditions that avoid mental suffering.
some fear and distress from predators could be construed as violating this and a slippery slope of outlawing animals which people want to do.

there are not enough laws protecting animal owners from the zealots on the other side, ie the horse slaughter and eating it for pet food or human consumption by other cultures who the left constantly reminds us on one hand about who are we to judge, except when it comes to things they want to judge.  the easiest fight here is abortion, just look at our election.  the hurdles keep getting higher to what end?  the marginal producers keep going out of business and are in the minority, yet we focus our energy on this at what cost?  we say "i don't care what the cost, we shouldn't allow that".  i commend the effort to codify this, but there is not enough protection from the animal rightists.  using their logic and extension of it, man should not be on earth, yet they won't kill themselves to free the world from their footprint and future offspring or starve themselves like a perhaps true adherent, a jainist would.


jainists quote
"others exclude root vegetables from their diets in order to preserve the lives of the plants from which they eat"

i am leery of creeping idealism and am reminded of a sinclair lewis quote which ron paul mentioned the other day "When fascism comes, it’ll come bearing a cross" in response to a huckabee ad.  i need to investigate that reference a little.
 

chambero

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
3,207
Location
Texas
I think those concepts are ridiculous because they are extremely subjective.  If you ever have a regulation like that, it will be interpreted to the most stringent extent possible.

I'm sorry, but conditions associated with raising livestock in Europe vs. the US are completely unrelated.  I generally think global economies are a good thing and am not an isolationist at all, but I just love how the "people" that were responsible for the original version of imperialism and colonization, wars in the last 200 years that have killed how many millions, and that can't even begin to feed themselves and keep contaigous diseases out of their animals think they need to tell the U.S. how to take care of our business  (how is that for generalization).  I guess they've gotten really smart in the last 50 years.  More likely that way too many of them got killed off in the last two world wars and gene pool is too weak.

Animals are ours to do with as we please.  We are the dominant species.  We have obvious responsibilities as such, but animals are not widely abused in this country.  The only reason a cow walks long distances in the pasture is because they have to.  If you put down enough feed and water in one spot, they ain't moving. 

I'm just afraid our version of common sense isn't theirs.  The folks that feed the world don't need those that can't telling us how to do it.

 

ROAD WARRIOR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Iowa
I don't disagree with any of the 5 points in theory, but (yes I always have a but) I don't want common practices legislated to me. A perfect example is the mandatory seatbelt law, they have spent millions of dollars to protect me from me, do I agree that safety belts save some lives - Yes. Do I belive that saftey belts kill some people - Yes! I have had the terrible job of packing 3 young people ( 3 different accidents) feet first out the door because they were wearing them and could not escape . If the government makes these things mandatory and punishable, the left wingers will write the laws to the point that the animals will live better than alot of people (many already do!) and no one will be able to afford to raise them - insn't that the goal of the left wing anyway? Don't waste the taxpayers money on unrealist laws that penalize the very people that feed you - take that money and support our troops that have come home from overseas to find no job and end up as the homeless or having the inability to fit back into the society that they fought to preserve. We already have way too many ignorant, short sighted laws on the books now and if I remember correctly there are already laws on the books that protect animals from abuse.Daily vent over - have a good one! (if that's still legal)
 

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
ROAD WARRIOR said:
I don't disagree with any of the 5 points in theory, but (yes I always have a but) I don't want common practices legislated to me. A perfect example is the mandatory seatbelt law, they have spent millions of dollars to protect me from me, do I agree that safety belts save some lives - Yes. Do I belive that saftey belts kill some people - Yes! I have had the terrible job of packing 3 young people ( 3 different accidents) feet first out the door because they were wearing them and could not escape . If the government makes these things mandatory and punishable, the left wingers will write the laws to the point that the animals will live better than alot of people (many already do!) and no one will be able to afford to raise them - insn't that the goal of the left wing anyway? Don't waste the taxpayers money on unrealist laws that penalize the very people that feed you - take that money and support our troops that have come home from overseas to find no job and end up as the homeless or having the inability to fit back into the society that they fought to preserve. We already have way too many ignorant, short sighted laws on the books now and if I remember correctly there are already laws on the books that protect animals from abuse.Daily vent over - have a good one! (if that's still legal)

RW - if what's still legal? daily vent or have a good one??
 

ROAD WARRIOR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Iowa
DL - If it's still legal or unlegislated - Have a good one or in the right situation - have one on me!
 

shortyisqueen

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
313
Location
Alberta, Canada
Although we do have to watch for the animal-rightists muscling in on such legislation, I think over all, these 'five freedoms' are a good thing. I think some of the opinions epressed have been an automatic knee jerk reaction that we do not want to be legislated or have anyone tell us what we can and can not do to produce food (we're already legislated to the point that there is no getting out of being legislated, so that is that). Realistically, though, how many of us are already providing the five freedoms to our animals? I bet if we took a poll, it would be...pretty close to all of us (if not 100%).

I think the animal rights groups are expecting to react in the manner shown on the board - violently in opposition - so that they can say: "See, they refuse to provide basic humane treatment for their animals - and this is what you are supporting by eating meat." They don't want us to take measures such as these (which I would say all of us are already providing), because they want to show that what we are doing is wrong.

I find animal rights groups to be important - don't get me wrong, I dislike them as much as the rest of you! However, there is some value in hearing opposition, if only to see the perspective from an urban dweller's standpoint. Their opinion is what we are up against and we need to see things from a different angle to convince city-folk that it is good to support the meat industries. If we TELL them that eating meat is okay because we say so and know more about it than they do (everyone wants to hear someone say that they're smarter than you are !!! or not!!!), they are not going to listen. If we SHOW them we are taking measures to make sure our animals are raised as humanely as possible, that we are listening to their concerns, that we are constantly evolving our animal husbandry practices to be as humane and stress-free as possible, and that animals are not humans and do not behave or learn or feel emotion in similar ways, I believe we have a better chance of turning the tide in our favor.

If anything, such legislation puts the onus back on the small producer, as these are the people that can ensure each and every individual animal is cared for as well as they can be. As the consumer orients themselves more towards organic, and farm-raised food products, they will want to know that their food was cared for properly, which is a environment that the small producer can provide better than any other.

Just some more food for thought...
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
shortyisqueen said:
"See, they refuse to provide basic humane treatment for their animals - and this is what you are supporting by eating meat."

they don't support eating meat.  they don't support freedom.  they need to be pushed back instead of doing all the pushing.  the balance has swung too far.  more laws to protect people from them need to be enacted so we don't have to waste so much time and energy validating what we supposedly do anyway.

this is a viscious cycle and counterproductive.  i would venture to say the need some happy pills.  they are some of the most unhappy people i have ever met, and they make me unhappy.  they are the cause of my stomach acid and should therefore pay for my recovery, (using their logic of capturing every conceivable cost as long as it promotes their agenda, which as we all know, is socialism or whatever ism that dismantles the constitution).
 

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
ROAD WARRIOR said:
DL - If it's still legal or unlegislated - Have a good one or in the right situation - have one on me!

RW - Gotcha - and back at ya!

shortyisqueen- IMHO a very thoughtful and insightful answer -
A friend of mine had animal controll called because the calves were screaming - turns out they were being weaned - he could have ranted and raved about the urban idiots but instead used the opportunity to educate both animal control (don't know much about cows here) and theperson who complained....

Some of the things we do to and "for" our cattle could maybe be done better or with less pain or with less stress (ie dehorning early vs at 9 months) we need to think about it and make improvements before we are told what to do ;)


 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
http://www.foodweek.com.au/main-features-page.aspx?articleType=ArticleView&articleId=1167

we need to do unto others, rather than constantly be done to.  a preemptive defensive position unncessarily wastes money for everyone.  this strategy needs to be turned on it's head.  screw the screwer.  they know what strategy works and we let them.
 

garybob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
1,634
Location
NW Arkansas
knabe said:
shortyisqueen said:
"See, they refuse to provide basic humane treatment for their animals - and this is what you are supporting by eating meat."

they don't support eating meat.  they don't support freedom.  they need to be pushed back instead of doing all the pushing.  the balance has swung too far.  more laws to protect people from them need to be enacted so we don't have to waste so much time and energy validating what we supposedly do anyway.

this is a viscious cycle and counterproductive.  i would venture to say the need some happy pills.  they are some of the most unhappy people i have ever met, and they make me unhappy.  they are the cause of my stomach acid and should therefore pay for my recovery, (using their logic of capturing every conceivable cost as long as it promotes their agenda, which as we all know, is socialism or whatever ism that dismantles the constitution).
So,
Knabe, have you heard the latest Arkansas drama? An agriculture Teacher in Huntsville is in Hot, hot, water, over Euthanizing a Racoon with (get this) a pneumatic Nail Gun, just like Mel Gibson did in one of his "Lethal Weapon" movies. He was teaching an Environmental Science/ conservation Biology course that falls under the "Natural Resources" umbrella in Modern Agricultural Education Curriculum.
It made the AP "shock! you won't believe it!" List.
This is the same kinda technology used in Commercial Packing plants , they call it the "Captive Bolt Stunning" Method. Number Two, this Vermin was caught "Red-Handed" in a Contract Turkey growers Brooder House, in the act of killing Turkeys. Parent caught it in a live trap, and, took it up to the school, and donated it to the Teacher's benefit as a legitimate teaching tool.

So, why does everybody think we're Rednecks?
 

cowz

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,492
Now, if I were rabies testing that raccoon, I would have had to take it in for "euthanasia and decapitation" so that his wee little brain could be tested.  Sound like he just saved some government entity $100.00.
 
Top