Factory Farm Environment

In order to provide a safer environment for factory farmed animals in Australia, and to better regulate factory farming, new legislation specific to the welfare of livestock needs to be introduced.
In order to provide a safer environment for factory farmed animals in Australia, and to better regulate factory farming, new legislation specific to the welfare of livestock needs to be introduced.
Factory Farming in Queensland
Summative Item 3.3
Factory Farming in Queensland
Summative Item 3.3

Maria Vernieu
Year 12 BSDE
Mr. McInnes
31/05/2013

Maria Vernieu
Year 12 BSDE
Mr. McInnes
31/05/2013

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 2 1.1 Overview of Key Arguments……………………………..................... 2 1.2 Definitions………………………………………………………………… 2
2.0
Discussion…………………………………………………………………. 3 2.1 Queensland Legislation ………………………………………………... 3 2.2 Applying Legislation…………………………………………………….. 4 2.2.1 Restriction of Natural Behaviours………………………….. 4 2.2.2 Living Conditions/Confinement…………………………….. 5 2.2.3 Unnecessary Pain and Torment…………………………….. 6 2.3.4 Why Aren’t Farmed Animals Protected by the ACPA?..... 7
3.0 Recommendations………………………………………………………… 8
4.0 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….. 9
5.0 References………………………………………………………………….. 10

1.0 Introduction
Each year in Queensland, approximately 357,300 pigs, 1,700,000 laying hens and 3,500,000 meat chickens are born into factory farms (Animal Liberation Queensland, 2013). Factory farming is the most sought after way for animals in Australia to be raised for food. Animals that can be found in these farms include chickens (both egg layers and meat chickens), turkeys, pigs and about half a million of Australia’s cattle are born and raised in connected outdoor feedlots. The purpose of these factory farms is to produce a large number of livestock in conditions that are intended to maximize production at minimal cost (Webster, 2013). The problem with this system, however, is that the welfare of the animals is being ignored. The legislation regarding animal welfare in Queensland is the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD). Although the Act acknowledges some factory farming procedures, it does not go into much detail or provide adequate regulations. Factory farming is a multi-billion dollar industry, and because of this, it deserves its own legislation that outlines specific regulations relevant to its operations. The protection of the vulnerable is a key principle in human society. However, the current animal cruelty laws in Queensland fail to protect all animals. In order to provide a safer environment for factory farmed animals in Queensland, and to better regulate factory farming, new legislation needs to be introduced.

1.1 Overview of Key Arguments
The welfare of all animals is important; whether they are chickens and pigs or dogs and cats. The capacity to feel pain and suffer is the same for all animals and, therefore, the welfare of all livestock should be taken into consideration. According to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), the Animal Care and Protection Act QLD (ACPA) “places a legal duty of care on people in charge of animals to provide for those animals’ needs in an appropriate way.” Although this is stated, there is no outline of specific regulations or a strong focus on factory farming in and of itself. The ACPA is too general about animal welfare and tends to pay more attention to the animals outside factory farms- as mentioned earlier; this is not justifiable as all animals have the same capacity to suffer. The ACPA has become too confusing due to many years of added codes; consequently the legislation as a whole is unorganized and unreliable. Therefore, a new act should be introduced that solely focuses on factory farming and its operations.

1.2 Definitions
Factory Farm- A large industrialized farm where a large number of livestock (cows, chickens, pigs, etc.) are raised indoors, in conditions intended to maximize production at minimal cost. (Merriam Webster, 2013)

2.0 Discussion 2.1 Queensland Legislation
In Queensland, the current legislation that protects animals is the Animal Care and Protection Act (ACPA). Section 3, Division 1 of the Act states that the purpose of ACPA is to protect all mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish from cruelty- while it also states that it promotes the responsible care and use of animals and protects animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable pain. Factory farming is not mentioned in the ACPA, but operations that take place on these farms are mentioned. According to the Act, these operations are regulated according to basic animal welfare standards; however, these basic standards are not clarified. The ACPA was originally written in 2001; however, since then there have been multiple additions to it, taking the form of codes.
Under Queensland’s Animal Care and Protection Act, there are codes of practice that are either adopted (not compulsory) by the Act or made compulsory under the Act. The majority of the codes relating to the care of livestock are only adopted, which therefore means that many regulations regarding operations that take place on factory farms are not compulsory (DAFF, 2012).
The codes of practice that outline the specific needs for all livestock are as follows;
• Cattle – 2nd Edition (adopted)
• Domestic Poultry – 4th Edition (adopted and parts are compulsory)
• Farmed Buffalo (adopted)
• Farming of Ostriches (adopted)
• Pigs – 3rd Edition (adopted)
• Farming of Deer (adopted)
• The Goat (adopted)
• The Sheep (adopted).

The codes of practice that regulate establishments where livestock is held are;
• Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (adopted)
• Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments (adopted).

(DAFF, 2012)

There is no code of practice for factory farms (as an establishment) that is adopted or compulsory- one merely does not exist. Therefore, there is no regulation specifically outlining how animals should be treated in such an establishment.
Chapter 3 of the ACPA, General Animal Offences, explains how a person in charge of an animal would breach their duty of care. If an individual in charge of an animal fails to provide appropriate care, Subsection (2) states that they could receive a maximum penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment.
Chapter 3 [S 17]
(3) For subsection (2), a person breaches the duty only if the person does not take reasonable steps to—
(a) provide the animal’s needs for the following in a way that is appropriate—
(i) food and water;
(ii) accommodation or living conditions for the animal; (iii) to display normal patterns of behaviour;
(iv) the treatment of disease or injury; or
(b) ensure any handling of the animal by the person, or caused by the person, is appropriate.

Section 18 of the ACPA outlines different forms of animal cruelty offences and prohibits a person from causing any harm to an animal. Subsection (2) states that a person could receive a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment if they were cruel to an animal in any of the following ways;

Chapter 3 [S 18]

(a) causes it pain that, in the circumstances, is unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable; (f) confines or transports it—
(i) without appropriate preparation, including, for example, appropriate food, rest, shelter or water; or
(ii) when it is unfit for the confinement or transport; or
(iii) in a way that is inappropriate for the animal’s welfare; or (h) unjustifiably, unnecessarily or unreasonably—
(i) injures or wounds it; or
(ii) overcrowds or overloads it.

2.2 Applying Legislation

The cruelties that factory farmed animals face, as mentioned above (2.2.1-2.2.3), are prohibited by the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD). However, factory farmers and the Government don’t consider them as cruelties but rather as routine operations. The adopted Codes of Practice regarding farmed animals fail to protect them from harm. Many farmed animals are considered as property rather than sentient beings that experience pain and emotions, just as domesticated animals do. 2.2.1 Restricting Natural Behaviours

Factory farmed animals are restricted from engaging in behaviours natural to them. Their small accommodations and secure confinement stop them from executing natural behaviours as simple as walking around or socialising with other animals.
Extensive scientific research undertaken by the European Commission Scientific Veterinary Committee in 2007, proves that many pigs on factory farms experience severe depression due to being denied access to natural light, space and the opportunity to explore for food in a natural environment. The cages in which they are kept prohibit them from engaging in natural behaviours, such as socialising with other pigs and exploring (Natural Bahaviour of the Pig, 2009).
On factory farms, meat chickens are kept in close confinement with tens of thousands of other chickens (Voiceless, 2012). This close confinement hinders natural behaviours and causes extreme discomfort. Chickens communicate using postures, visual displays and sounds but living in close confinement with thousands of other chickens causes high stress, anxiety and fear; it also does not allow them to communicate naturally (Representational Signalling in Birds, 2007). They rarely see natural sun light and are given no opportunity to engage in some of their most important natural behaviours, such as nurturing their young and roosting (Growing Meat Chickens, 2007). According to Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia Ltd, approximately 90% of chickens live this way.
The natural behaviours of layer hens on factory farms are hindered as they have insufficient room to act on natural instincts, such as dust bathing, preening, foraging and nesting (Voiceless, 2012).
According to the Department of Primary Industries, if a pregnant cow on a factory farm is expected to give birth later than the rest of the cows, then the farmer usually induces a premature birth to force milk production. Consequently, 35% of induced calves are stillborn and 70% die within a week of birth- drastically different than the expected 4% and 7% if the calves were born naturally. Inducing the birth of the calves prematurely goes against one of the most natural behaviours known to female cows- giving birth.
Chapter 3 [S 17] of the ACPA states that a person breaches their duty of care to an animal if the person does not allow the animal to engage in normal patterns of behaviour. It makes clear that the failure to do so is against the law and is punishable; however, factory farms violate these terms through their basic procedures and receive no punishment. 2.2.2 Living Conditions/Confinement
The living conditions of factory farmed animals are in no way humane or acceptable. Animals are overcrowded and forced to live in filthy cages or warehouses. Floors are covered in faecal matter and cages are so small that they are unable to move- causing serious injuries and discomfort.
On factory farms in Queensland, it is standard procedure to confine pregnant sows in small metal and concrete cages that are barely larger than the mother pig’s body; resulting in her not being able to turn around. In 2008, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council proposed the Australian Standards and Guidelines for the Welfare of Animals which endeavoured to address the need for “greater national consistency in livestock welfare standards.” According to the investigation they had undergone, they concluded that 84% of Australian sows spend a period of their pregnancy in metal cages, while one third are confined for the full 16-week term. During birth, sows are restricted even more as they are moved to a concrete area called a “farrowing crate”, which does not allow them to move.
It is common procedure among factory farms across Australia for chickens to be stocked at a density of approximately 20 chickens per square metre (Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Poultry, (4th edition) (2002). According to the animal rights organisation, Voiceless, this leaves each fully grown chicken with a personal space the size of an A4 paper. Additionally, they are forced to stand on floors that are consistently covered in faecal matter and they struggle for personal space (Growing Meat Chickens, 2007).
In June of 2007, Dr David Witcombe delivered a speech at the Animal Welfare Science Centre located in Victoria. His speech, entitled ‘Layer Hen Welfare: A Challenging and Complex Issue’, informed the audience about the cruelties layer hens face during confinement. Similarly to what meat chickens experience, layer hens are only given a personal space the size of an A4 paper. They are forced to live in cages with up to 20 other hens, leaving insufficient room to turn around or move side to side- and therefore, they are stuck in the same position for many months.
Chapter 3 [S 17] of the ACPA states that a person breaches their duty of care to an animal if the person does not provide appropriate accommodation or living conditions for the animal; and, once again, factory farms breach these terms. Breaching these terms is punishable by law; however factory farms continue to accommodate livestock in this way as there is no proper regulation.
Chapter 3 [S 18] also states that confining an animal in a way that is detrimental to its welfare is a serious cruelty offence and is punishable by law. There is no doubt that the way animals are confined in factory farms is injurious, yet farmers continue to go unpunished. 2.2.3 Unnecessary Pain and Torment
Animals experience extreme pain and torment when confined in factory farms. Many of the painful procedures they endure are completed without any anaesthetic or pain relief, leaving them in excruciating pain that, in some cases, lasts their whole life (F Wemelsfelder and G van Putten, 1997). The procedures are done without any proper regulation and are completely unnecessary (Voiceless, 2012).
When piglets are born on factory farms, they are taken from their mothers prematurely; which is a stressful experience that causes a high extent of disease and diarrhoea (Gut Health: Practical Considerations 2001, pg. 249). Male piglets are castrated without any pain relief and their teeth are clipped without anaesthetic; these routine practices cause so much pain that it often leads to trembling and vomiting that can last up to 15 days (F Wemelsfelder and G van Putten. 1997).
On factory farms, the close confinement of meat chickens causes extreme distress and torment- it also causes pain and discomfort (Voiceless, 2012).
Dr David Witcombe’s speech in 2007, entitled ‘Layer Hen Welfare: A Challenging and Complex Issue’, explained that battery hens, on factory farms, spend their lives continually standing on sloping wire floors which are designed for efficient egg collection, rather than comfort. This continuous standing in the wire cages causes severe injuries, chronic pain and foot injuries.
Due to the cages restricting the hens from engaging in natural behaviours, many hens become frustrated. This results in pecking, bullying and cannibalism (Industrial Animal Agriculture, Compassion in World Farming 2003). In order to prevent hens from injuring one another, factory farmers conduct ‘de-beaking’ on chicks; this is done by burning off the top and bottom beak with an electrically heated blade (Philip Glatz, 2004). De-beaking causes tissue and nerve damage, which consequently results in chicks feeling chronic pain.
In 2005, Professor John Webster, Emeritus Professor of Animal Husbandry at University of Bristol, explained “The psychological demand for nutrients to support lactation creates a condition of ‘metabolic hunger’. The cow senses not only the continuous uptake of nutrients by the mammary gland, but also the cumulative effect of loss of her body reserves of energy and protein.” It can be widely assumed that the constant psychological pressure dairy cows are under on factory farms causes extreme torment and stress.
Producing such large quantities of milk increases a cow’s need for rest (Cattle Behaviour and Welfare 2002, pg. 11). Webster states that “the dairy cow is exposed to more abnormal physiological demands than any other farm animal. She is the supreme example of an overworked mother.”
Just like human mothers, dairy cows only produce milk once they have given birth. Therefore, milk production relies on the constant production of calves (Animal Health Australia, 2011). Once a calf is born, it is removed from its mother in order to prevent it from drinking the mother’s milk- as the milk is sold for human consumption. According to the report, ‘Investigations of Maternal Bonding in Dairy Cattle’, mother cows develop a strong maternal bond with her calves in as little as five minutes after birth. Therefore, the separation of the two is extremely upsetting and causes depression and stress.
Chapter 3 [S 18] of the ACPA states that causing unreasonable and unnecessary pain, torment, terror, worry or injury to an animal is not acceptable and is against the law. Despite this regulation, factory farms continue to carry out cruel practices that the majority would consider being unjustifiable if performed on a domestic animal. 2.2.4 Why Aren’t Farmed Animals Protected by the ACPA?
Queensland’s animal welfare laws deny legal protection to the majority of animals found in human care- farmed animals. Millions of animals are raised for food each year in factory farms, where they experience pain and suffering in the same ways as beloved pets. However, the Australian legal system fails to protect these animals against the cruel treatment they endure; the sole reason being to ensure that animal industries remain as profitable as possible (Animals Australia, 2012).
The animal rights organisation, Animal Australia, states “Few in the community are aware that animals raised for food are denied the same legal protection from cruelty as dogs or cats — and governments, retailers and cruel animal industries would prefer it remained that way. They know as we do, that since all animals share an ability to suffer we have an ethical responsibility to protect them all from harm.”
Industry operators and governments are motivated by maximising profits, therefore animal welfare becomes irrelevant to them. In a civilised society, maximising profits should never be a justifiable excuse for allowing detestable acts of cruelty to millions of animals every year. Factory farmers are being allowed to get away with what would be illegal if those responsible were held accountable and forced to face actual animal cruelty laws.

3.0 Recommendations
Factory farming is a multi-billion dollar industry and because of this, it deserves its own legislation outlining specific rules and regulations, which are beneficial to the millions of animals born into factory farms each year. The Animal Care and Protection Act 2001(QLD) fails to protect farmed animals and makes the protection of domesticated animals its main priority. After many years of adding Codes of Practice to the ACPA, it has become extremely unorganized; therefore, by adding new regulations regarding factory farming, it would only create further confusion. A new Act by the name of Livestock Welfare: Care and Protection (LWCP) should be created; this Act will only focus on the welfare of livestock and will clearly outline rules and regulations pertaining to the treatment of animals on factory farms. This will create a much simpler approach to regulating factory farms and will be efficient in setting forth the expected standards of such establishments.
The LWCP should be written by numerous people, including Queensland government officials, animal welfare experts and members of animal rights organisations, such as the RSPCA. This will provide a range of insight and allow for the legislation to be produced fairly and consistently, meeting the requirements of many different stakeholders. The LWCP should be enforced by the same people who enforce the ACPA; such as, Biosecurity Queensland, RSPCA animal welfare inspectors and the police (Queensland Government, 2013). Failure to adhere to the standards outlined in the LWCP could lead to a maximum of 5 years imprisonment or a $200,000 fine.
In addition, the ACPA should be reorganized by removing all of the Codes of Practice that are relevant to factory farming, as they are not in proper use. The general laws that outline animal cruelty should remain the same as they are consistent and fair; but the Codes of Practice that have any relation to the welfare of livestock should be removed. The ACPA should remain a general piece of legislation that continues to protect domestic animals from harm- while the LWCP takes the responsibility of livestock welfare. Animals raised for food are in a greatly different situation than household pets; therefore it is justified to have two pieces of legislation with separate focus points, specific to their own circumstances.
Lastly, the LWCP should regard animals raised for food in the same way that household pets are. The capacity to suffer is the same between all animals, so livestock should not be treated any different. The Queensland government should seek alternative methods for confining livestock and create environments which are less stressful and cause as little discomfort as possible. By doing so, animals will be able to engage in natural behaviours, free from a life of terror and pain.

4.0 Conclusion
In today’s society, factory farming is the most sought after way for animals in Australia to be raised for food.
It has become a multi-billion dollar industry with the intent to produce a large number of livestock in conditions that are intended to maximize production at minimal cost. Due to this high demand, the welfare of livestock is being ignored. The Animal Care and Protection Act refuses to protect livestock from harm and treats farmed animals as property rather than sentient beings. By introducing a new piece of legislation entitled the Livestock Welfare: Care and Protection Act, it will prioritize livestock welfare and address the urgent issues relating to the treatment of farmed animals. If the Queensland government acknowledges the suffering of livestock and takes action to minimise their distress, it will allow for farmed animals to live a much more peaceful life -- free from unnecessary pain – and provide justice to the millions of animals born into Queensland farms each year. Finally, by the government taking livestock welfare into consideration, it will create a far more civilised society which is based on strong ethics and a strong sense of
justice.

5.0 References
Anil, L. (2003) Comparison of injuries in sows housed in gestation stalls versus group pens with electronic sow feeders. [report] p.223.
Animals Australia (2012) Codes of Cruelty // Animals Australia. [online] Available at: http://www.animalsaustralia.org/issues/codes-of-cruelty.php [Accessed: May 2013].
Animals Health Australia (2011) Proposed Amendment to the Land Transport of Livestock Standards (SB4.5) – Bobby Calves Time Off Feed Standard. [report] p.3.
Australian Chicken Growers ' Council (2013) Growing Meat Chickens. [online] Available at: http://www.acgc.org.au/resource_material/more/28/ [Accessed: May 2013].
Australian Chicken Meat Federation (2011) Industry Facts and Figures :: ACMF. [online] Available at: http://www.chicken.org.au/page.php?id=4. [Accessed: May 2013].
Australian Pork (2013) Australian Pork . [online] Available at: http://www.australianpork.com.au/pages/page175.asp [Accessed: May 2013].
CABI Publishing (1997) Behaviour as a Possible Indicator for Pain in Piglets. [report] Netherlands: p.266.
Dairy Australia (2011) Yield - Dairy Australia. [online] Available at: http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Statistics-and-markets/Production-and-sales/Milk/Yield.aspx [Accessed: May 2013].
Department of Primary Idustries (2008) Calving Induction in Dairy Cows - Department of Environment and Primary Industries. [online] Available at: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/dairy/breeding/calving-induction-dairy-cows [Accessed: May 2013].
Dr David Witcombe, ‘Layer hen welfare: a challenging and complex issue’ (Speech delivered at Animal Welfare Science Centre, Department of Primary Industries, Atwood, Victoria, 8 June 2007).
European Commission Scientific Veterinary Committee (Animal Welfare Section) (1997) Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. [report] p.Report No XXVI/B3/SCVC/0005/1997 .
Evans, C. and Evans, L. (2007) Representational signalling in birds. Biology Letters, 8 p.3. Available at: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/1/8.full [Accessed: May 2013].
Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia (2009) Facts and Figures. [online] Available at: http://www.frepa.com.au/frepa-accredited-farms-some-facts-and-figures/. [Accessed: May 2013].
Glatz, P. (2004) Laser Beak Trimming. [report] Australian Egg Corporation Limited, p.188.
Hudson, S. and Mullord, M. (1977) Investigations of Maternal Bonding in Dairy Cattle. Applied Animal Ethology (3), p.271-276.
Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Poultry, (4th edition) (2002), sections 2, 3 and Appendix 2; Animal Care & Protection Regulation 2002 (Qld) regulation 15

Morton, J. and Butler, K. (1995) The effects of induced parturition on the incidence of clinical disease and mortality in dairy cows from commercial herds in south-western Victoria. Australian Veterinary Journal , 1-4 p.72.
Phillips , C. (2002) Cattle Behaviour and Welfare. 2nd ed. Blackwell Science, p.11.
Pricket, H. (2003) Compassion in World Farming. [e-book] CIWF Trust. Available through: http://ciwf.org.uk http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/i/industrial_animal_farming_booklet.pdf [Accessed: May 2013].
Primary Industries Ministerial Council (2013) Proposed Model Code Of Practice For The Welfare Of Animals – Pigs (RIS Pig Code). Regulatory Impact Statement . [report] Primary Industries Ministerial Council .
Queensland Government (2013) The Animal Care and Protection Act | Queensland Government. [online] Available at: http://www.business.qld.gov.au/industry/agriculture/animal-management/land-management-for-livestock-farms/welfare-and-transport-of-livestock/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-law/animal-care-protection-act [Accessed: May 2013].
Springer Science + Media (2009) The natural behaviour of the pig. [report] Dordrecht:.
Voiceless (2012) Voiceless. [online] Available at: http://www.voiceless.org.au/ [Accessed: May 2013].