Future Animal Care Rules:

Lessons from the 2013 EU Animal Care Study Tour

Overview• Participants• Countries• Visits• Take-Aways• Conclusions• Recommendations• Questions

Countries

EnglandFrance

BelgiumHolland

Germany

Denmark

Visits

Cattle: England and BelgiumDairy: EnglandDiversified: England and BelgiumHog: England, France, Holland & DenmarkLayer: England, Belgium, Holland & DenmarkFarm Groups: ALLGovernment: ALL (U.S. and EU officials)

Animal Welfare“(…) means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter/killing. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment.(…)”

(World Animal Health definition, adopted by 172 members, May 2008)

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

1973UK Joins EU

19741st AW EULegislation

1986BSE

Identified

1993Single Market

1998Food &

Veterinary Office

1999EC Protocol

2000White Paper on

Food Safety

2002EFSA 2009

Lisbon Treaty

TransportStunning & Killing

Laying Hens

Pigs & Calves

on farm

General Directive

Action Plan Broilers

Animal Welfare Strategy

Timeline: EU Animal Care

Source: EU Commission

Mitchell Farms Coventry, England

Mitchell Farms, Coventry, England

Dairy Visits

Take-AwaysCattle

Animal ID in place and EU farmers strong advocates for• appreciated especially for management• passports and written record for every movement• absolutely necessary for other animal regulations in EU

Tail docking and dehorning banned Antibiotics restricted and tracked Siting/expanding as tough as in U.S. Farmers know their retail outlet for meat Beef is expensive in EU: Opportunities for U.S. Heritage and geographical indicators

• will be important considerations in trade agreements• will allow EU to pursue what we would consider unacceptable practices

Belgian Blue

Morgan “Sainsbury Concept” Farm England

Ley Farms France

Ley Farm France

Douma Farm Holland

Jorgensen Farm Denmark

Douma Farm Holland

Take-AwaysSow Housing

Each country and farm dealt with 1/1/13 Stall Ban in its own way• England in group housing “scheme” since 1999, lost the most money and

market share to competition and imports, some farmers retired or sold out

• French farmers received 200 Euros per animal (actual cost 1,000 Euros per)

• Dutch and Belgian farmers did not receive support

Other provisions of the EU directive:• slot width, minimum pen length, and enrichment “toys”• can’t tail dock or clip/grind needle teeth• pre-directive limits on antibiotic use

Sainsbury “Concept” farm most welfare friendly• only operation we saw using significant straw• required more labor, space, waste handling (much labor required)

All sows had more injuries and were dirtier than our sows

Sunrise Eggs - England

Rondeel - Holland

Take-AwaysLayer Cages

England:• 45% enriched, 45% free-range, 5% barn, and 5% are organic or specialty• Farmers have had success with enriched colony• organic was growing, but now free range/organic premium minimal• had egg shortage for a time but now production back up• Top official quality control is the Red Lion• consumers not happy with enriched colony and pressing for free range

Holland:• Rondeel franchise designed with consumer input (draw image of layer facility)• Only four such facilities in Holland• Cost to produce eggs is 3 times more than enriched colony• Several California farmers considering (system requires mild weather)

Denmark:• More barns and aviaries than England• Cage egg farmers produce the most eggs and have lowest mortality• Chicken grinders visit farms to dispose of birds – mink feed

Labels Labels Labels

Take-AwaysAntibiotic Use

• EU antibiotic use restricted: Sub-therapeutic and growth promoting use banned in much of EU in mid 1990s.

• The decline in total antibiotic use after the ban turned into a gradual increase in total antibiotic use over the past decade (not to prior levels).

• Some EU nations (Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Holland) use significantly more antibiotics than Denmark, which is one of the lowest users.

• Per kg of meat, Danish hog farmers use 1/5 the antibiotics as U.S. farmers.

• A Danish farmer using too many antibiotics gets a “yellow” card. He and his vet then work to clear his name/record (which is also on the web).

• Penalties are very expensive for mis-use of antibiotics in the EU.• Not sure how the system pays for all of the additional paperwork,

audits, tests, personnel, etc.• U.S. farmers need better numbers on antibiotic use is (by class,

species, time period, farm size, etc.) to combat attacks against its use, and to “do better”.  

General Take-Aways As occurs here, many EU animal welfare decisions driven by marketing

Group housing (sows) and round barns (hens) are selling points to make consumers feel better about their meat and egg purchases

Banning or highly regulating antibiotic use gives consumers a false sense of security

EU farmers have adapted to multiple regulations/bans Say they “wouldn’t go back” to old ways Farmers in one country try to one-up their competitors in other countries Costs increased so farmers now seeking new efficiencies Nations not on same playing field (northern EU yes, southern EU no) Legislation caused production shifts (genetics in north, finishing in Germany or

south) Despite high up front costs, most farmers finding their way to profitability

Unintended consequences of EU regulations Larger operations in order to spread increased costs across more animals Greater concentration in livestock industries as production shifts and

specialization occurs Increased (visible) injuries to sows and shortened lives of piglets Demands of consumers and activist groups not decreasing

Waitrose

London

Conclusions Many EU regulations are impractical outside of that climatic

region:• Open air barns would not protect animals during U.S. weather extremes• U.S. straw production cannot support Minnesota’s let alone U.S. sow production• EPA/consumers would not allow piles of “muck” in fields and next to

waterways/ditches

Increased animal care or other production regulations:• increase size of farms and level of concentration in the industry• decrease farmer competiveness and disrupt the sector leading to:

• Potential loss of income, jobs, and tax revenues• Probable increase of imports of meat from countries with weaker regulations

EU consumers don’t understand labeling scheme details, but do respond to housing, treatment, and other labels.

US farmers will see the same regulations introduced here:• Greater transparency in agriculture will help avoid unsubstantiated mandates• Open dialogue regarding good agricultural practices will help win consumer trust• Need to continue to spread balanced and accurate information• Demonstrate willingness to listen and continuous improvement• U.S. farmers need to stay united and not allow animal care that is not better for

animal

Questions

Thank you!