HUSBANDRY REGAINED: FUTURES FOR ANIMALS IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE John Webster Professor Emeritus, University of Bristol, Old Sock

Cottage, Mudford Sock, Yeovil BA22 8EA, UK john.webster@bris.ac.uk Animal farming is under pressure from many sides on grounds of diet and human health, animal welfare, overconsumption of valuable resources, social inequalities and environmental sustainability. Much of this criticism is justified yet animal farming wont just quietly fade away, not least because it cant. Pastoral systems occupy 26% of ice-free land on the planet. A further 33% of cropped land goes to animal feed. Thus directly or indirectly well in excess of 50% of managed land is devoted to animal agriculture (1). Moreover, despite all the above concerns world-wide consumption of meat, milk and eggs is predicted to rise by about 70% in the next 10 years. A rational analysis of modern, largely intensive animal husbandry reveals both pros and cons. The pros include affordable food, year-round availability, wide choice and improved appearance. The evidence on taste is less convincing. The cons include reduced value and respect for individual farm animals, wildlife, loss of social structure in the rural environment and unsustainability. It has been calculated that by 2030, if Chinas people are consuming at the same rate as Americans they will eat 2/3rds of the entire global harvest and burn 100M barrels of oil a day, or 125% of current world output. My aim is to present a constructive exploration of the future role of animal husbandry in sustainable agriculture. To this end, we need first to examine how we got to where we are today. Peasant farming was poor but sustainable because land use was complementary. Cows, sheep, horses gathered food that was unavailable to us, from land that we didnt own. Pigs and poultry scavenged food we dropped or rejected. However nobody who worked the land got rich. The first agricultural revolution came about as a result of private ownership of formerly common land. The new gentry may have stolen the land from the peasants but the system generated wealth and was sustainable ecologically largely because it used renewable resources available on site. The driving factors for the second agricultural revolution, the modern factory farm are illustrated in Fig. 1. The biggest change has been a massive increase in non-farm inputs of feed, power and financial subsidies (especially in Europe). This has greatly increased food production and income (though not necessarily profit) for the famers. It has also contributed (although not inevitably) to new problems of pollution and animal welfare. Intensification of housing occurred because it became cheaper to truck the feed to the animals and truck away the manure than to let the animals gather the feed and fertilise the land for themselves.

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.1

The process was also made possible through the discovery and liberal use of antibiotics that made it possible to sustain high productivity in conditions of crowding and squalor. Observed within the historical context of sustainable agriculture, the intensive livestock farm has had a very short life and it is already sick, due to problems of animal health and welfare, public health and pollution. We cannot dodge the conclusion that it is unsustainable in its present form. Fig 1.The genealogy of the modern factory farm (2)

Audits of agriculture Nearly all justification and criticism of animal production systems is based on limited premises, usually selected to reinforce individual prejudice. In this section I examine various aspects of animal agriculture from different perspectives and show that the answers are highly dependent on how you formulate the questions. One of the commonest criticisms of animal farming is that it wastes food and land that could be better used to grow crops directly for human consumption. At first sight this is self-evident. It is necessary however to distinguish between competitive and complementary sources of animal feed (e.g. cereals and forages). Table 1 examines the efficiency of conversion of feed energy for animals to food energy for humans. Measured in terms of total input of feed energy, intensive egg and pork production are far more efficient than beef production (33, 19 and 8% respectively).

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.2

Measured in terms of efficiency of conversion of competitive feeds, the efficiencies become 35, 24 and 24%, i.e. beef matches pork. Dairy production when approximately 65% of the diet is complementary is by far the most efficient by both accounts: 42% efficient with respect to total feed energy, 139% in terms of competitive feed energy. In other words the dairy cow produces far more high-quality food for human use than she consumes. Table 1 Efficiency of energy conversion in meat, milk and egg production. Output is defined by energy in food for humans; inputs are described in terms of total and competitive intake of ME. (2).
Eggs 1 hen 0.05hens 15 130 389 351 5.0 0.33 0.35 Pork 22 pigs 1 sow 1300 13000 67038 53630 736 0.19 0.24 Milk Beef 1 cow 1 calf 0.33heifers 1 cow 8000 200 28000 2500 67089 29850 20127 10268 236 108 0.42 1.39 0.08 0.24

Production unit Support unit Output/year (kg food) MJ food energy Input/year (MJ ME in total) MJ 'competitive' ME kg 'competitive' protein Efficiency Food Energy/total feed ME Food energy/'competitive' feed ME

Another approach to the audit of animal systems of special relevance to animal welfare, is to pose the question How hard do animals work?. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 which compares feed intake (Metabolizable Energy, ME), heat production = work load, and energy yield in the form of food for human consumption. For simplicity of comparison these energy exchanges are compared against the standard of a sedentary human (e.g. office worker). Growth in pigs and egg production in poultry are both relatively leisurely processes in energy terms (although calcium demands on laying hens are severe). Lactation is extremely demanding, both for the dairy cow and the lactating sow. However the cow is expected to lactate for 10 months per year, the sow perhaps 6-10 weeks/year. This table alone is sufficient to explain the rapid burn-out and short productive life of the modern dairy cow.

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.3

Table 2. How hard do animals work? (2)

Species Human Activity Sedentary Working miner Lactating woman Endurance cyclist Grower Lactating sow Broiler chicken Laying hen Passerine feeding chicks Suckler with one calf Dairy cow, 50l/day Energy exchange ME intake Work/heat 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.53 1.28 2.60 2.90 2.10 1.30 3.20 1.73 2.10 1.18 1.73 1.30 3.03 3.03 2.22 1.32 5.68 2.14 "Food" 0.25 -0.30 0.80 1.47 0.92 0.43 0.91 3.53

Pig Birds Cow

Another major criticism of animal farming concerns its negative impact on the environment. Table 3 presents a simple life-cycle assessment of energy use and production of greenhouse gases (GHG) in poultry, pig and beef systems. By these measures, the intensive systems appear to be the most frugal, measure in terms of fuel energy use and GHG emissions measured in terms of CO2 equivalents. Traditional systems, e.g. organic pork and pasture-finished beef, consume much more fuel energy and produce far more GHG than the intensive systems. These measures help to make a strong case for intensification. They do not make much of a case for beef production by any means. Table 3. Life cycle assessment of inputs and emissions required to produce one tonne of meat in broiler, pig and beef production systems (3,4).
Output (1 tonne meat)

ME total
36 52 68

Broiler chickens Pork, commercial Pork, organic Beef, feedlot finished Beef, pasture finished

149 194

Energy use (GJ) ME competitive Fuel energy 14.9 32 9.7 41 11.4 49 84.2 51 114.2 20

GHG CO2 equiv 1.39 2.47 2.52 32.7 45.3

Table 4 carries the life-cycle analysis further. Here balances of C and GHG are assessed in terms of the total system; GHG emissions from ruminants are set against C sequestration in pastures. By this analysis, beef grazing permanent pastures is the most environmentally friendly system. Agroforestry systems, where cattle or other appropriate species graze and manage the grass that grows between the trees are powerfully beneficial C sinks, mitigating the abuses resulting from consumption of fossil fuels. However, within current economic rules, they dont generate much income.

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.4

Table 4. Balance of C and GHG in European grassland systems. All values are expressed as g CO2 equivalents/m2 per year (5).
Beef, grazing C sequestration pasture only pasture + barn CH4 production pasture only pasture + barn Net GHG sequestration pasture only pasture + barn 471 471 145 145 +320 +320 Dairy, grazing and barn fed 183 269 159 387 -22 -163 Dairy, barn fed 259 361 0 323 +230 +9

The main conclusions I draw from these audits of animals in agriculture are: Extensive systems are more costly in feed and energy Feed energy should be classified as competitive and complementary Dairy production is extremely efficient but extremely demanding on the cows. Feedlot beef is the worst by all measures Extensive production can be environmentally friendly but can only survive if we give proper value to the potential environmental benefits. Animal health and welfare The health and welfare of a sentient farm animal may be defined by the following criteria. Physiological state: the ability to meet e.g. metabolic requirements and maintain homeothermy. Health status: the ability to avoid e.g. injury and resist challenge from pathogens and parasites Emotional status: the ability to avoid e.g. pain and fear, and maintain a positive emotional state.

Table 5 identifies some of the most important health and welfare problems for pigs, poultry and dairy cattle in intensive production systems. These include the production diseases that are, by definition, acknowledged to have been caused by us.

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.5

Table 5. Origins of major problems of health and welfare in intensive production systems. The most serious origins are indicated with an asterisk*. (Br = broilers, LH = laying hens) Pigs
Feeding Housing Post weaning enteritis* Enzootic pneumonia Stereotypies Aggression, tail biting, Lameness Lameness (sows)

Poultry
Lameness (Br)

Dairy Cattle (including calves)

Breeding

Management

Aggression Pain following mutilations

Lameness (Br) Frustration (LH) Bone fractures (LH) Feather pecking (LH) Lameness (Br)* Infertility*, mastitis, Bone fractures (LH)* Lameness Aggression (LH) Exhaustion Feather pecking (LH)? Lameness* Pain following mutilations

Infertility*, ketosis Rumen acidosis Anaemia, ulcers (veal)* Lameness, mastitis Abnormal behaviour (veal)*

Structured approaches to the categorisation of welfare state in farm animals include the Five Freedoms and the Principles and Criteria adopted by the Welfare Quality programme funded by the European Union (Table 6). These criteria now form the basis for national and private-sector protocols for Quality Assurance in animal welfare. Politics, philosophy and economics There are three drivers to human actions in regard to animal production and animal consumption, the law, economics and ethics. The law addresses matters of animal welfare in three ways. Proscriptive laws (what we must do and not do): eg. U.K. Protection of Animals Act (1911), Animal Welfare Act 2006 Regulations and Codes of Practice (what we should do and not do): e.g. EC directives (e.g. transport), DEFRA codes of practice. Incentives (what we encourage you to do): e.g. EU common agriculture policy payments for rural development and higher stewardship

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.6

Table 6. Categories of good welfare as described by the Five Freedoms and the Welfare Quality principles and criteria (6)
Five Freedoms Freedom from hunger and thirst Freedom from thermal and physical discomfort Freedom from pain, injury and disease Freedom from fear and stress Freedom to exhibit normal behaviour Welfare principles Good feeding Good housing Good health Welfare criteria Absence of prolonged hunger Absence of prolonged thirst Comfort around resting Thermal comfort Ease of movement Absence of injuries Absence of disease Absence of pain induced by management procedures Expression of social behaviours Expression of other behaviours Good human-animal relationship Positive emotional state

Appropriate behaviour

The economics of supply and demand with regard to farm products are driven by how we value the services they provide. These are illustrated in Fig.2. We value the benefits we obtain according to their use value do they give use the food we need at a price we can afford? and their non-use value what satisfaction do they give us by other measures of satisfaction. These are many and various, ranging from high ethical principles to fashion and status. The point to be made in this context is that it is self-defeating to consider food simply as a commodity to be sold at the cheapest price. The success of high welfare foods (e.g. free-range eggs) is a striking example of this. Fig 2. Valuation of goods and services from the the land (7)

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.7

Although human actions are driven primarily by economics and legislation, it is proper (indeed ethical) to analyse human behaviour according to classical principles of ethics. These are illustrated very simply in the form of an Ethical Matrix that examines the moral responsibilities of producers and society to our moral patients, the farm animals and the living environment. Table 6. The Ethical Matrix
Moral agents Human society at large Beneficence Wholesome, safe, cheap food Access to the countryside Autonomy Freedom of choice Justice Fair food pricing Legislation and incentives: production methods and land use Fair trade Good husbandry

Producers and land Financial reward owners Pride in work Moral patients Farm animals Competent and humane husbandry The living environment Conservation Sustainability

Free competition

Environmental A life worth living enrichment Individual freedom of choice Biodiversity Respect for Live and let live environment and stewards of the environment

The future: better, kinder food We already know enough to enable us to manage things better in future. The paths to the destiny of better, kinder food include implementation of better practice, the application of good new science and changing attitudes within society. Examples of routes to this end are given below. Poultry Practice Science Broilers Layers

Feeding in early development Selection of fitter strains Hatchery hygiene Improved selection Genomics Demand for high welfare breeds Legislation for environmental standards

Building design (bone fractures) Calcium metabolism Disease resistance (vaccines, genetics) Selection against feather pecking Demand for free range eggs Legislation for environmental standards

Society

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.8

Dairy cows
Practice Science Society

Selection for robustness Improved foot care Management in transition/early lactation Mastitis resistance (vaccines, selection, genomics) MAS for increased robustness Milk composition: casein structure, farmaceuticals Quality control schemes:- supermarket initiatives Legislation on environmental standards

Planet husbandry My first big message is that we (society at large) need to consider animal production within the context of planet husbandry, namely best use of the land. This must be assessed in terms of all the criteria listed in Table 7. The opportunities for planet husbandry include the sustainable, economic production of food and other utilities, non-food products, including energy generation from biomass, biofuels and wind power. They should also be seen to include stewardship of the living environment measured in terms of critical elements of environmental quality such as carbon, nitrogen, water and greenhouse gases and in terms of less physical human non-use values such as amenity, recreation and beauty. All these opportunities carry matching responsibilities. Table 7 Opportunities and responsibilities in planet husbandry
Aims Food from plants Opportunities Food for humans Feed for animals Commodities Value-added products Fibres (e.g. cotton, wool) Draft power Biomass and biofuels Access to countryside Recreation Field sports C & N sequestration Water management Wildlife management Sustained land value Responsibilities Soil quality Pollution control Preservation of habitat Complementarity Public health Animal welfare Pollution control Animal welfare Soil quality Health and safety Aesthetics Humanity and utility Support from society

Food from animals Non-food items Amenities Stewardship

If it is to succeed, the concept of planet husbandry will require a balanced policy of penalties and rewards: penalties for pollution but commensurate rewards for effective action to mitigate pollution from all sources and enhance the quality of the living environment assessed from both use and non-use measures of value.

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.9

Society cannot expect the landowners, who are the real stewards, to provide all these elements of lasting value unless we are prepared to reward them with more than income from sale of food as a commodity. Who pays and how is open to negotiation. I suggest that those things that contribute to the general good, e.g. carbon sequestration and water management should be subsidised through taxation, those that add value for the individual, e.g. high-welfare food, should be paid for by the individual. Quality assurance and quality control My second big message is that if we (society at large) are to drive improvements in animal husbandry, we need to be convinced that the standards we demand are actually being met. This requires a strategy for assessment and surveillance of husbandry standards operating in parallel with a policy for the promotion of guaranteed better products and practices. My approach to this in the specific context of animal welfare is illustrated by the concept of the Virtuous Bicycle; two simultaneous virtuous cycles operating on farm and beyond the farm gate (Fig. 3). Fig. 3. The Virtuous Bicycle: a delivery vehicle for improved farm welfare (6)

The producer cycle involves self-assessment by the farmer, monitoring of husbandry and welfare by a trained independent observer and the implementation of a dynamic action plan for animal health and welfare. The retailer cycle depends on proof of compliance with standards and promotion of added value goods, where quality of life for the farm animals and the living environment are included within the assessment of value.

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.10

The approach is already being incorporated into quality assurance schemes operated by supermarkets and bodies such as RSPCA. It is essential however that the scheme brings rewards to all parties, consumers, farmers and their animals. When I first began to trawl these ideas (in a much more nave way) some thirty years ago, they met with serious opposition from the farming industry, who feared that things were bad now and this approach would only make things worse. With time, and increasing public concern for farm animal welfare, farmer response moved towards the position that they would love to look after our land and our animals better but if they do they will be ruined by the supermarkets and foreign competition. In UK the recent expansion in sales of added-value products like free-range eggs and Freedom Foods, together with supermarket rewards to their clients for improved animal welfare is rendering many of these fears groundless and creating a new optimism within the farming industry. Many of us have been trying for years to unlock the door to husbandry regained. To my delight (and surprise) it has blown wide open. A full exposition of these arguments will be published later this year by Earthscan as: John Webster, Husbandry Regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture References 1. FAO (2010) Climate-smart agriculture: policies practices and financing for food security, adaptation and mitigation. FAO, Rome 2. Webster John (2005). Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden. Blackwell Publications, Oxford 287pp. 3. Pelletier N, Lammers P, Stender D, Pirog R (2010) Life cycle assessment of high and low-profitability commodity and deep-bedded nache swine production systems in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agricultural Systems 103, 599-608 4. Pelletier N, Pirog R, Rasmussen R. (2010) Comparative life cycle environmental impact of three beef production strategies in the upper Midwestern United States. Agricultural Systems 103, 380-389 5. Soussana J-F, Klumpp K, Tallec T (2009) Mitigating livestock greenhouse gas balance through carbon sequestration in grasslands iop science iop.org 6. Webster AJF 2009 The Virtuous Bicycle: A delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare. 18, 141-148 7. McInerney J (2012) Ethics and the economics of animal use. Proceedings First International Conference on Veterinary and Animal Ethics. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford in press.

Webster, John, Husbandry regained: futures for animals in sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the AVA Annual Conference, Canberra 2012 Monday Plenary 21 May. P A3.11