Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:14:45.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strengthening US organic standards on animal health and welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

KA Merrigan ,
MR Bailey  and
W Lockeretz
KA Merrigan
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Agriculture, Food and Environment Program, 150 Harrison Avenue, Tufts University, Boston MA 02111, USA
MR Bailey*
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Agriculture, Food and Environment Program, 150 Harrison Avenue, Tufts University, Boston MA 02111, USA
W Lockeretz
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Agriculture, Food and Environment Program, 150 Harrison Avenue, Tufts University, Boston MA 02111, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: melissa.bailey@tufts.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Organic livestock production has been increasing in the US, although it still merely constitutes a small fraction of total production. Its success will require detailed standards supported by scientific knowledge and consistent with organic farming principles. However, such standards, mandated under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, are yet to be fully developed. Regulations issued by the USDA's National Organic Program identify livestock health and welfare concerns that must be addressed in a farmer's organic farm plan (eg that there be appropriate housing). However, specifics regarding achievement of these goals are not provided in the form of clear standards for organic livestock production. This paper provides a new starting point to further the development of such standards. First, we outline a rationale based upon the legal context and state of the organic livestock industry detailing the reasons why development of these standards is timely. Second, using a review of existing organic and nonorganic national and international animal health and welfare standards, a search of available scientific research, and a consensus of key stakeholders, we identify areas in which organic standards should be readily adopted. We conclude by presenting one example of a plausible organic standard for each of four major US livestock categories: minimum space for feedlot beef cattle; prohibition of routine tail-docking in dairy cows; provision of perches for laying hens and prohibition of gestation crates for sows.

Keywords

animal healthanimal welfareNational Organic Programorganic livestock productionorganic standardsUS livestock systems
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 45 - 54
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Alr⊘e, HF, Vaarst, M and Kristensen, ES 2001 Does organic farming face distinctive livestock welfare issues? A conceptual analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14: 275–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1997 Animal Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC, Walker, AW, Nicol, CJ, Lindberg, AC, Freire, R, Hughes, BO and Elson, HA 2002 Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43: 489–500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC 2004 What causes crowding? Effects of space, facilities and group size on behaviour, with particular reference to furnished cages for hens. Animal Welfare 13: 313–320Google Scholar
Andersen, H, Jensen, L, Munksgaard, L and Ingvartsen, K 1997 Influence of floor space allowance and access to feed trough on the production of calves and young bulls and on the carcass and meat quality of young bulls. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 47: 48–56Google Scholar
AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) 2005 Task Force Report: A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 227: 1580–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmichael, NL, Walker, AW and Hughes, BO 1999 Laying hens in large flocks in a perchery system, influence of stocking density on location, use of resources and behaviour. British Poultry Science 40: 165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) National Organic Program (NOP) 2000 7 205.238, Livestock Health Practice and 7 205.239 Livestock Living Conditions. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2004 Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare 13: S3–S7Google Scholar
Duncan, ET, Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1992 Effect of perches in laying cages on welfare and production of hens. British Poultry Science 33: 25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC (European Community) 1999 Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production. Official Journal of the European Communities 24.98.1999. Brussels. L 222: 1–28Google Scholar
Eisher, S, Morrow-Tesch, J, Albright, J and Williams, R 2001 Tail-docking alters fly numbers, fly-avoidance behaviors, and cleanliness, but not physiological measures. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 1822–1828Google Scholar
Elgar, MA and Crespi, BJ 1992 Cannibalism. Ecology and Evolution Among Diverse Taxa. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Executive Order Number 12866 1993 Regulatory Planning and Review. 58 Federal Register 51735 (October 4, 1993). Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Gold, MV 2004 Organic Livestock Production: A Bibliography. Special Reference Briefs Series No SRB 2004-5. USDA, Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. National Agricultural Library USDA: Beltsville, MD, USA. Available at: http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AFSIC_pubs/srb0405.htmGoogle Scholar
Gold, MV 2007 Organic Livestock Production: Dairy Production. Selected Citations: 2004-January 2007. USDA, Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. National Agricultural Library USDA: Beltsville, MD, USA Available at: http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AFSIC_pubs/srb0405Dairy.htmGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, S, Keeling, LJ and Svedberg, J 1999 Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40: 12–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewson, CJ 2003 What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequences. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 44: 496–499Google ScholarPubMed
Jansen, J, Kirkwood, RN, Zanella, AJ and Tempelman, RJ 2007 Influence of gestation housing on sow behavior and fertility. Journal of Swine Health and Production 15: 132–136Google Scholar
Kaufman, M 2007 Largest Pork Processor to Phase out Crates. Washington Post, January 26 2007, Page A06. The Washington Post Company: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Kondo, S, Sekine, J, Okubo, M and Asahida, Y 1989 The effect of group size and space allowance on the agonistic and spacing behavior of cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambe, NR and Scott, GB 1998 Perching behavior and preferences for different perch designs among laying hens. Animal Welfare 7: 203–216Google Scholar
Lammers, PJ, Honeyman, MS, Mabry, JW and Harmon, JD 2007 Performance of gestating sows in bedded hoop barns and confinement stalls. Journal of Animal Science 85: 1311–1317CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lipson, M 1997 Searching for the O-word: analyzing the USDA Current Research Information System for pertinence to organic farming. Organic Farming Research Foundation: Santa Cruz, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) 2005 Japanese Agricultural Standard for Organic Livestock Products. Notification No 1608. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
Morris, R, Hurnik, JF, Friendship, RM, Buhr, MM, Evans, NM and Allen, OB 1997 The effect of the Hurnik-Morris (HM) system on sow locomotion, skin integrity, and litter health. Journal of Animal Science 75: 308–310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, R, Hurnik, JF, Friendship, RM and Evans, NM 1998 The effect of the Hurnik-Morris (HM) system on sow reproduction, attrition, and longevity. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2759–2762CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NOP (National Organic Program) 2002 Production and Handling Preamble. Subpart C, Organic Crop, Wild Crop, Livestock and Handling Requirements. Agricultural Marketing Services, USDA: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Olsson, AIS and Keeling, LJ 2002 The push-door for measuring motivation in hens, laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Animal Welfare 11: 11–19Google Scholar
Padel, S, Schmid, O and Lund, V 2004 Organic livestock standards. In: Vaarst, M, Roderick, S, Lund, V and Lockeretz, W (eds) Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture pp 57–72. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B 1995 Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical and Research Issues. Iowa State University Press: Ames, Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
S Rep No 101-302 1990 Report of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry US Senate. US Government Printing Office: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
S Rep No 101-357 1990 Report of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry US Senate. US Government Printing Office: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Schmid, O 2002 Comparison of EU Regulation 2092/91, Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Organically Produced Food 1999/2001, and IFOAM Basic Standards. In: Rundgren, G and Lockeretz, W (eds) Reader, IFOAM Conference on Organic Guarantee Systems: International Harmonization and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture pp 12–18. IFOAM: Tholey-Theley, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Schreiner, D and Ruegg, P 2002 Effects of tail docking on milk quality and cow cleanliness. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 2503–2511CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, GB and Parker, C 1994 The ability of laying hens to negotiate between horizontal perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, GB, Lambe, NR and Hitchcock, D 1997 Ability of laying hens to negotiate horizontal perches at different heights, separated by different angles. British Poultry Science 38: 48–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegwart, R, Wechsler, B and Gygax, L 2006 Increasing the housing area available for beef cattle. Effects on behaviour, soiling and daily weight gain. Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt fur Agrarwirtschaft und Landtechnik (FAT) 652: 1–8Google Scholar
Stinner, DH 2007 Science of organic farming. In: Lockeretz, W (ed) Organic Farming: An International History pp 40–72. CABI: Oxfordshire, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 Pub L No 96-354, as amended by The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-121. US Government Printing Office: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Tucker, C, Fraser, D and Weary, D 2001 Tail docking dairy cattle, Effects on cow cleanliness and udder health. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 84–87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) 2005a Dataset: US certified organic farmland acreage, livestock numbers and farm operations, 1992-2005. Economic Research Service; Washington DC, USA. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/organic/Google Scholar
USDA 2005b Dataset: Certified and total US acreage selected crops livestock 1995-2005. Economic Research Service: Washington DC, USA. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/organic/Google Scholar
Vaarst, M, Roderick, S, Lund, V and Lockeretz, W 2004 Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, G, Ekstrand, C and Svedberg, J 1998 Wet litter and perches as risk factors for the development of foot pad dermatitis in floor-housed hens. British Poultry Science 39: 191–197Google ScholarPubMed
Weeks, CA and Butterworth, A 2004 Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, CA and Nicol, CJ 2006 Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens. World's Poultry Science 62: 296–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, CC 2004 Skeletal disorders in laying hens: the problem of osteoporosis and bone fractures. In: Perry, GC (ed) Welfare of the Laying Hen pp 259–278. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar