The Advantages of Animals Over Technology

I'm generally favorable to technology, but as my mother used to observe, there were advantages to animals. For example, when field work for the day was over, you could pretty much let the team of horses find their way to the barn.  And, according to her though I never experienced it, if you took a load of potatoes from her folks' farm to the city (Binghamton) to sell, once the load was disposed of the horses would take you home with little or no guidance.

I'm reminded of that when I read a recent post on Ricks' "The Best Defense".  Earlier I'd seen the progress people were making on developing a pack robot, four-footed, self-powered, capable of crossing irregular terrain carrying 1-200 pounds.  It looked impressive. Then there was Sgt. Reckless, a war horse in the Korean War, who carried 5 tons in 51 trips.  I bet she was a lot quieter and a lot cheaper to develop.

AMS Follows My Advice? NAIS

Unlikely, but AMS announced a proposal for animal identification that:

livestock moved interstate would have to be officially identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or other documentation, such as owner-shipper statements or brand certificates. The proposed rule encourages the use of low-cost technology and specifies approved forms of official identification for each species, such as metal eartags for cattle. However, recognizing the importance and prevalence of other identifications in certain regions, shipping and receiving states or tribes are permitted to agree upon alternative forms of identification such as brands or tattoos.

 That's essentially what I suggested a while back when they asked for comments on the previous NAIS proposal: a two-tier system, one tier for animals moving in the big commercial channels, the other tier for locavore/food movement types.  Now it seems from Walt Jeffries post at NONAIS.org that my compromise isn't enough, but I'm not clear how his toes are being stepped on. Last I checked his meat was sold at outlets in Vermont only, so he wouldn't be subject to the regs.  Though it's possible he has a mail-order business which reaches outside the state but I'd think the rules could easily cover that case. 

Pigs Train Their Human

Given the example of Walt Jeffries and his peach-eating pigs, we're reminded that the relationship of humans and animals is a dance, just as the relationship of humans and humans is a dance.

It's Always More Complicated Than You Think: Farrowing Pens

The title of the post reflects one of my firm beliefs.  For example, someone visiting our farm would see a herd (small) of black and white cows. I would look at the same animals and see individuals, simply because I had a history with them.

PETA and the Humane Society have campaigned against farrowing pens.  Musings from a Stonehead has a post presenting the other side of the story. Of course, if Walt Jeffries of Sugar Mountain Farm reads the post, he may have a third point of view.

Horses. Bears. and Bison

In the 19th century there was controversy over whether horses, when galloping, ever got all four feet off the ground.  One of the first time-lapse photographers proved they did.  (Foregoing based on aging memory).

I was reminded of that when I saw the pictures of a bear chasing a bison down a road, CNN via Treehugger.
When you're running for your life, or for your dinner, you get all four feet off the ground.

And How About Federal Standards (Chickens)?

Understanding Government has a post on California chicken.  As they say, the animal rights people imposed tougher standards on CA chicken growers 2 years ago, over poultry opposition.  This year, animal rights and poultry people imposed the same tougher standards on eggs imported into CA.   One can see this in many ways.  I'd add to UG's discussion the  idea that liberals usually tend to support one nationwide standard for things, except when they don't, as here.  Again I go back to the idea of our weak government, due in part to federalism.  Political principle is easily discarded when the government structure makes it easy for you to win.

So Much for the Myth of the Loving Bonobos

Beneath the velvet glove lies an iron hand, according to this article in today's Times:

Once, while in the Congo, I witnessed Tatango, this young male bonobo, start to do what the chimps in Uganda regularly did: he went up to the alpha female, Mimi, and backhanded her across the face. She gave him the most withering look. Within seconds, five unrelated females chased him into the forest. Poor guy. They almost took his testicles off. After that, he never made another problem. Bonobo females seem to know that if they stick together, the males can’t dominate.

Ohio Compromise--How to Treat Livestock

It's not the Missouri Compromise of 1820, but Gov. Strickland probably faced some similar passions: the Farm Bureau protecting current methods of raising livestock, particularly cages for hens and farrowing  crates for sows, while the Humane Society wants to end both.  Farm Policy has a description here. 

If I understand, they took a standard approach in these sorts of disputes: grandfather in the existing operations and apply new rules to new operations. (Same tactics have been used in lots of labor union-employer disputes; keep the old-timers whole and make the newbies suffer.) John Phipps has a slightly jaundiced, dare I say cynical evaluation.

Given the proliferation of outlets, the bottom line for farmers and processors is: if you and your customers wouldn't like seeing it on-line, don't do it, because it will be on-line.  Just ask Dave Weigel about the ability to keep data private.

So Much for the Innocence of Nature

Chris Blattman passes on a research report which he labels: "Are Whales Racist"? Once you start distinguishing between "us" and "them", it's a short slippery slope to racism and war.

Not Mice, But Bees Are What Elephants Fear

According to this Post article, elephants fear bees.

Sows

The summary of an extension post on farrowing and nursing facilities:

The decision regarding space allocation pits the biology of the pig against the economics of production systems. Since each 3% reduction in space allocation for pigs in fully slatted facilities results in only a 1% reduction in daily gain and daily feed intake, producers have historically accepted a reduction in individual pig performance in order to maximize economic returns from investments in facilities. Based on the recommended codes of practice from the European Economic Community and Canada, there is no agreed upon standard for space allocation in the world community. In the future, considerations such as welfare codes and response of the market chain may change the space allocation decision.

If I recall, Florida put some sort of restriction on farrowing pens. I'm rather of two minds on this, and similar animal welfare issue. On the one hand there's a power imbalance between the animal grower and the animals.  One of my rules is based on Lord Acton: power corrupts.  Granted over the long haul it's in the interest of the grower to treat her animals humanely, but so is it in the interest of employers to treat employees well.  We know neither happens in every case.  On the other hand, there's definite economic tradeoffs, as shown by this study.  The bottom line, as society gets wealthier we can afford to put some of the wealth to better treatment of animals as opposed, say, to more square footage for the home.

Humane Society and Hens

LA Times has a story on Humane Society videos of "egg-farm" mistreatment of hens.

Natural Beef in New York City: Creekstone Farms

A long and interesting article in the Times today on Creekstone Farms, which is providing beef to a number of NYC's better restaurants.  An excerpt:

Close to a fourth of Creekstone’s meat is “natural,” meaning free from antibiotics and growth-producing hormones; cattle are given vegetarian feed and, as a quality-control measure, it is noted which ranch each came from. In 2005, after adopting stringent standards, the company won certification to provide its highest-end products to theEuropean Union, Japan and Korea.

“We want to know that the animals are raised responsibly,” said Riad Nasr, an executive chef at Minetta Tavern.

And customers do, too, because “they can’t trust the regulators,” said Malcolm M. Knapp, who heads a restaurant consulting company in Manhattan that bears his name. “These days, diners can use their phones right in the restaurant to check beef out on the Internet. And they do.”

It looks like a trend.  (Later on in the article they note the higher prices Creekstone has to charge.) There are those small livestock farmers who oppose NAIS, but there are those who are finding a niche by marketing a history along with the meat.  Maybe we'll end with a 3-tier system: the mass market meat, the quality market meat with a history, and the local market meat with a face.

Electronic Health Records Advance

My healthcare provider is Kaiser, which has had electronic records for a while now.  They've improved the setup--my wife was able to schedule an appointment online very easily (about as easily as I was able to schedule an appointment for the car to be serviced).

Today, though, I got an email from the vet (for our two cats)--they're going electronic as well.  So far I'm less impressed with the software than the others I've mentioned, but the march of progress is carrying all before it.

Why Animal Farmers Should Be Afraid

Here's a Treehugger followup to their post on how male chicks are killed. The summary of comments gives some time to those, like me, who argue this is the way you feed the world. But they put the key point at the end: the observation the original post attracted a hell of a lot more comments and interest than did other green issues. Our diet, and how animals are treated, are a very sensitive issue, so there will be lots more attention devoted to it in the future, which will not be good for current animal rearing practices.

Making Life Better for Our Animal Brothers

John Phipps blogs about a proposal to breed animals to reduce/eliminate their pain at being confined, as in CAFO's. Tyler Cowen blogs about researchers who have identified how to create music which tamarin monkeys like.

Clayton on NAIS

From Chris Clayton's column a few days ago:

if anyone wonders why animal ID is so screwed up, it's partially because USDA gets no definitive direction from Congress on just what should happen with the program. Some members in the House and Senate want a national, mandatory program. Others say no way. So now, USDA gets potentially half the money to keep the program on some sort of life support.

That's the way legislation works. If Congress comes to agreement, fine. If Congress fudges, and papers over disagreements in order to get a piece of legisltion, the poor bureaucrat suffers.

NAIS and Cattle Rustlers

ABC news did a piece on cattle rustling in Oklahoma. They didn't mention NAIS, but implicitly it made the case for it.

NAIS and Food Facility Listings

In my comments on National Animal Identification System I suggested APHIS might ask FSA to do as they used to do with the food and facility listings maintained in case of nuclear disaster. Little did I realize that 20 years after the end of the cold war, we're still maintaining the data. But now FSA is moving to the GIS system. See this FSA notice. I applaud the move, though I've a qualm or two about the need for the data.

NAIS Comments

I tried to submit NAIS comments today, but regulations.gov seems to be either overloaded or not working well. So, for what they're worth, my two cents:

Comments on NAIS

I grew up on a small dairy/poultry farm so I can understand some of the concerns of the small producers. As a retired bureaucrat I also see the fix APHIS finds itself in. It seems to me APHIS is stuck--there's no way to go forward on your current lines because the opposition is too vocal, too numerous, and too dug in. You can't get the participation without paying the freight; you can't get the dollars from Congress to pay the freight because you can't get a broad consensus in the field.You need something different to break the logjam.

I think there are historical analogues that can be instructive. In the 1960's USDA maintained a food and feed facility directory. In the case of a nuclear attack USDA field offices would have been responsible for inventorying what was left and coordinating its use.Thank goodness it was never put to the test.

Also in the 50's and 60's we had the fluoridation controversy and the fight over whether seatbelts should be required in cars. In both cases time has cooled the flame of conflict, particularly as the older geezers died and the new generations came along. There are some issues where that's the best you can do in the U.S.--the founding fathers didn't design the government for fast efficient action.

My suggestions:

1. First, you need a more accurate title. "National Animal Identification System" must have been invented by a bureaucrat. It sucks. No wonder small farmers are scared of it. In the U.S. we rarely have national systems for anything, not in the sense the French or Japanese have a national education system, for example. What you have under the title "NAIS" is a typical federal mish-mash of organizations and standards which is successfully creating confusion. A better name for what you're doing might be: "Standards for Animal Identification Systems"--more descriptive and more accurate, and possibly less scary for NAIS opponents.
2. Rely on the USDA field offices (i.e., FSA and NRCS) to create and maintain a national list of names and addresses of people and legal entities who are raising animals and the types of animals raised. There shouldn't be much additional work required, because they already should have all farmers in the Service Center Information Management system. You'd need to get animal type information added and give access to APHIS field personnel. The offices should also try to increase their efforts to give farmers their own access info.
3. Add layers to the geographical information system (GIS) used by NRCS and FSA to reflect the addresses recorded in item 2. Ideally separate animal types by layer, so one view shows all cattle ranchers, another all sheep, etc.
   

The idea would be, after items 2 and 3 are complete, if there's a report of a disease occurrence in hogs, say H1N1 flu, you could display the locations of all hog farmers within a radius of 30 miles, 100 miles, or whatever and have a listing of their phone numbers and email addresses to use in making contact. Time required: minutes, leaving you 47 hours to work the list. This seems to me to be easily doable and it gives you a national quick response system with, I hope, a minimal intrusion on the concerns of the No-NAIS people.

My comments on the remaining issues: think tiers and 6 degrees of connection.

By "tiers" you apply different rules for producers the products of whose animals may be exported than those which sell to neighbors. (Just as OSHA applies different rules for large factories than small shops.) You apply different rules for animals whose birth is separated by 6 steps from death to consumption than those which only have 2 steps.

Finally, I think you may be relying too much on the idea of identifying animals for small farmers That was the only way to go back in the days of tuberculosis and brucellosis, pushing paper, and IBM punch card sorters. But these days, when schools have moved from sending letters home to parents to automated calling and tweets, you should be flexible and innovative.