DO SMALL ENCLOSURES FOR ANIMALS CONSTITUTE ANIMAL CRUELTY?
THE advertisement posted by the 35 Australian scientists, mostly veterinarians, claiming that hormone growth promoters and sow stalls protect animals’ welfare is a distressing example of the misguided nature of scientists, many of whom rely on industry for research money, supporting indefensible practices in animal production.
Enclosing a sow in a stall little bigger than herself for weeks on end, so that she cannot turn around, forage for food, build a nest or interact with other members of her species demonstrates a scant regard for her welfare. Similarly injecting beef cattle with hormone growth promoters (HGPs) can hardly be advocated on the grounds that it is a conventional practice when, for nearly all the time that humans have raised cattle, HGPs were never even thought of.
On the contrary there is disturbing evidence that HGP-treated cattle are overactive and less able to cope with extreme temperatures compared with cattle that rely on their own natural hormones to control their growth.Scientists should be pioneering new systems of production that will allow producers to meet the needs of consumers, not championing the merits of “conventional” systems that are now recognised for the risks that they pose.
Professor Clive Phillips, School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland
