Research: Australian Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cattle in Beef Feedlots
One cannot help but be moved by the misery suffered by factory farm animals as described in the previous section. Especially noteworthy is the way in which the animals' interests are not considered at all by the factory farmers. The farmers treat only the symptoms of the animals' suffering rather than the causes. Furthermore, they only do this when their own interests are at stake, not the animals'. Hence, they pre-emptively mutilate the animals to prevent them from attacking each other, hence damaging the farmers' merchandise. They also feed them medication to prevent them from dying from infections, also preventing damage to their merchandise. Yet nothing is done about animal sterotypies, simply because it does not affect the animals' marketability as food. Proper treatment of all three of the above conditions would, of course, involve removing the root cause of their suffering. This would mean placing them in a larger area where they could live more normal lives. But the farmers will not do this because it is a more expensive practice than simply keeping them in their present cages and removing their ability to damage themselves or each other.
However, I am also impressed by the argument I mentioned in "The Morality of Eating Meat". It is immoral to kill a human being simpliciter, but it is not immoral to kill an animal simpliciter. Assuming that only one's own interests and the animal's are at stake, one can therefore kill an animal for any reason, including food purposes, so eating meat cannot be intrinsically immoral. This is already an important result. It is reinforced for me by the moral observation that eating a humburger at McDonald's does not look immoral prima facie. However, it can still be immoral to make animals suffer unduly while they are alive. An animal, after all, will still have preferences not to be made to suffer in the range of the moment that it perceives. It does still seem that we do wrong to the animal to intentionally make it to suffer when we can prevent this from happening.
In this respect, however, I think that to use statistics from the US is simply misleading. As an Australian, I should be looking at statistics from Australia. I remember ages ago, I read a student newspaper article to Mum and Dad about the practices of factory farming, and they wondered why the RSPCA didn't do something about it. It seemed that factory farming would never stop while such enormous commercial interests were at stake. This was not enough to make any of us become vegetarians, but it can only be upsetting to think that one depends on such practices for one's diet. This is enough to make me want to investigate what the RSPCA itself has to say about factory farming in Australia.
Searching for "factory farm" on the RSPCA website takes me to an introductory page about animal welfare problems in Australia. There is a section on beef feedlots. It states that "National Feedlot Guidelines were developed three years ago to control environmental and animal welfare issues associated with beef feedlots." I must therefore look up these guidelines, which can be downloaded for free from the website of the CSIRO.
Section 2.2 of the guidelines covers animal welfare. Section 2.2.2, "Considerations", mentions an Australian Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cattle in Beef Feedlots. "It is the responsibility of lotfeeders to ensure that the animals in their care are properly and responsibly managed according to" this code, "or as it may be modified by individual States/Territories". This is located in Appendix 2.2A of the Guidelines. It seems that I have my reading cut out for me, but at least it will keep me off the streets.
However, I am also impressed by the argument I mentioned in "The Morality of Eating Meat". It is immoral to kill a human being simpliciter, but it is not immoral to kill an animal simpliciter. Assuming that only one's own interests and the animal's are at stake, one can therefore kill an animal for any reason, including food purposes, so eating meat cannot be intrinsically immoral. This is already an important result. It is reinforced for me by the moral observation that eating a humburger at McDonald's does not look immoral prima facie. However, it can still be immoral to make animals suffer unduly while they are alive. An animal, after all, will still have preferences not to be made to suffer in the range of the moment that it perceives. It does still seem that we do wrong to the animal to intentionally make it to suffer when we can prevent this from happening.
In this respect, however, I think that to use statistics from the US is simply misleading. As an Australian, I should be looking at statistics from Australia. I remember ages ago, I read a student newspaper article to Mum and Dad about the practices of factory farming, and they wondered why the RSPCA didn't do something about it. It seemed that factory farming would never stop while such enormous commercial interests were at stake. This was not enough to make any of us become vegetarians, but it can only be upsetting to think that one depends on such practices for one's diet. This is enough to make me want to investigate what the RSPCA itself has to say about factory farming in Australia.
Searching for "factory farm" on the RSPCA website takes me to an introductory page about animal welfare problems in Australia. There is a section on beef feedlots. It states that "National Feedlot Guidelines were developed three years ago to control environmental and animal welfare issues associated with beef feedlots." I must therefore look up these guidelines, which can be downloaded for free from the website of the CSIRO.
Section 2.2 of the guidelines covers animal welfare. Section 2.2.2, "Considerations", mentions an Australian Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cattle in Beef Feedlots. "It is the responsibility of lotfeeders to ensure that the animals in their care are properly and responsibly managed according to" this code, "or as it may be modified by individual States/Territories". This is located in Appendix 2.2A of the Guidelines. It seems that I have my reading cut out for me, but at least it will keep me off the streets.
Comments