Jorge Castro

Professor McClure

Writing 39C

28 April 2018

Advocacy Project: Cattle Industry to Sustainable Farming

Introduction (Problem Definition):

Jeremey Bentham, famous English philosopher and founder of modern Utilitarianism

once stated that “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?”

This idea refers to society treatment and view on animals particularly in the subject of using

them for our benefit and consumption. Whether they can communicate similarly like us or

perform sophisticated argumentation like use is out of the question. The decisive and consistent

factor that most philosophers debate over is whether or not are they capable of suffering, in

essence sentience. We see this debate and discussion revolving around specific aspects of society

facets most notably factory farming and the animal welfare involved. There are multiple

perspectives regarding the dilemmas in modern beef industries pre-slaughter procedures and

animal welfare of cattle in factory farms in the United States. These practices include branding,

dehorning and castration of cattle in preparation and raising of these animals for the slaughter

process. The issues arise from the amount of pain and suffering that the cattle experiences which

infracts moral arguments and legislation that enforces for acceptable humane treatment that

would minimize the anguish. The Humane Method Slaughter Act (HMSA), is the notable

federal and state law that has been developed and used to ratify changes in treatment in the cattle

procedures. However, while methods such as bolting, chest-sticking and other forms of practices

are within the context of legal boundaries there are several key issues involving moral, health
and economic concerns that should be addressed and mandated to provide a stronger change in

factory farms. Thus, rather reinforcing existing laws that allow for the continuation of factory

farming, it would be more plausible and sufficient to enact an alternative legislation that would

promote for switch to a sustainable farming system with humanness and localized agriculture as

it main primary.

In the discussion of the beef industry and legislative rules, several red flags are raised that

relate to the torment the cattle are subject to thus creating a moral framework that filters the

problem out and provides reasoning for the critiquing of the current slaughtering and welfare

treatments. John Rossi, an Assistant Professor at Drexel University and Samual A. Garner,

Senior Bioethicist in HJF, in their co-author research, Industrial Farm Animal Production: A

Comprehensive Moral Critique (2014), details an evaluative comprehension of the ‘Industrial

Farm Animal Production’ (IFAP) concept and its position in our society as a debating concern.

Rossi and Garner stated that “cattle are castrated, dehorned or debudded, and sometimes have

their tails docked as well- again almost without anesthesia” (493). Moral components charge in

against these procedures under the notion that “IFAP causes tremendous animal suffering, that

sentient animals and humans possess a relevantly similar interest in not suffering…” (Rossi and

Garner 501).The framework here creates the notion of sympathy- that we should feel a degree of

sympathy and care for the health of the cattle and animals in general within the slaughterhouse

endorsed by the industrialized farms. The raised concept perceived from keeping the factory

farms is that the major benefits from the mass production of food and cheap purchase rating.

Thus, it becomes rather an appealing and reassuring systems to have in order to obtain easily

acquired produce and food. In addition to that, people generally prefer not to know what’s going

on in factory farm and believe that it has nothing to do with us. However, from ignoring the
problem, its only implying that these industries severe and immoral practices of raising the

animals are acceptable on the grounds of just not knowing. Therefore, it develops an entail duty

and moral obligation that while we consume meat, it should be insisted that we decide to engage

and participate with a new system that would allow for better quality of animal welfare and

feasible meat production. From this point of view, if we advocate for more tolerable humane

slaughtering on sustainable and natural farms, it would alive tension of the moral construct.

Health concern is the focus and aim by exploring the internal and external pains caused by

the cattle practices as well the conditions the cattle (or animals) in the industrial farms are living

in. These conditions include the confinement and small spaces of captivity and the slaughtering

procedure and practices involved with maintaining the cattle’s behavior and growth in the farms.

Raphael Guatteo, professor in Bovine Medicine & Health Management at the veterinary college

of Nantes (Oniris) and colleague in their collaboratives work Sources of Known and/or potential

pain farm animal (2014) listed and explains a number of other sources and factors that might

build on the increasing risk of pain endurance: “destruction of available space for the animal

either in stalls or on slats… the type of flooring which, in cattle, can induce varying frequencies

of lameness and foot disorders…[and] the mode of gathering the animals which can lead to
agnostic interactions, more frequent combat, and thus wounds and bruising, particularly if the

group is large” (323). In the table introduced here, we gain a sense of why the industries perform

certain practices against the animals in the most minimal idea. Gathering from the information,

we can assume that there at. The point made here from all these evidences that legal boundaries

of the methods doesn’t definitively say and suggest that the industrialized farms are “fine”

because these behaviors that these cattle are showing shouldn’t be excluded from the minds of

those making the laws. These behaviors do reveal the several moments of pain and suffering that

we’re trying to avoid.

However, the industrialized farms prefer to continue to use these methods due to cost and

benefits from including these procedures. Rossi and Garner noted that “Industrial farm animal

production exists solely for the purpose of producing large supplies of cheap animal products to

sell to the consumers” (486). This suggest that although the procedures and practices for beef

industries and factory farms in general could be considered as morally indefensible, it can be

argued that these sectors could be economically defensible by allowing those in the lower class

to purchase cheap products. As mentioned “lower food costs are a benefit because person can

spend the difference on other goods, save or invest it, or purchase more food for a given amount

money” (Rossi and Garner 497). Therefore, the cost of using the industrial frames produces a

large market of cheap products and produce that it can be tempting to want to continue and leave

the farms alone.

Resolution:

The fact remains that factory farms are integrated into our society because of the line of

production being made and demanded rate being asked for it. Businesses and properties of one

frequently seek out and grasp their hands on gaining this benefit to sell the public. But as the
public themselves have made increasingly small but exponentially sizing voices regarding the

cattle industry then it becomes clear that a change must be made. It is uncomfortably so to know

the horrific and injectates animals face themselves when residing in these industries. The

challenges in cattle industries are brought up when looking at the multiple facets and effects the

industry has in society including ecological concern and environmental issues with pollution and

animal waste. Insinuated in much of my reviewed evidence, the research suggests that the costs

of changing our society to a more sustain one is underwhelmed by the long-term benefits it can

produce and cultivate. The trade off losing cheap meat products such as cattle or anything else

such as poultry will be worth the disconnect from as the farms become more suitable for the

animals to be slaughter in and has many more healthy effects for us as we consume properly

raised cattle. Thus, my proposed solution is to support two bills that can legislate new

alternatives and refurbishment into the factory farms towards sustainable humane farms. The

bills are the Farm Animal Anti-Cruelty Act and the Food Farm Act, both that can be used to

signify changes in the industry despite having minor differences in terms of accomplishing their

own agenda.

The idea behind the framework of a sustainable farming system is that it would help create a

system that works to care and naturally raise animals allowing them to graze and function

properly in their evolutionary behavior. From there, when preparing to slaughter them, the

procedures will have done more sufficiently and quickly that it would involve no machinery or

long conveyor line that would stress or pressure the cattle. While there is the issue of killing the

cattle, which is no different from what the factory farms are doing, it should be emphasized the

pre-treatment of the cattle is largely gapped between the sustainable areas and industrial places.

Simply put that the animal welfare of the sustainable farms grants public support and align with
various moral agents that sanction it while for the factory farms there is a greater degree of

public outcry against it and that moral theories and philosophy challenges their practices

thoroughly. Thus, humane sustainable farms have a more appeal and acceptance of being a

practice for people to partake in and acquire food farm. In Michael C. Appleby, Sustainable

Agriculture is Humane, Humane is Agriculture Is Sustainable (2004), makes rigorous and

analytic discussing and definition of what it means to be a ‘humane sustainable agriculture’.

Through his paper, it would help simply and define the terms I am using and facility a stronger

guidance as to why the bills I am proposing should be implemented. As Appleby mentions that, “

For a law to be acceptable to the people it applies to.” there needs to be a clear and concise

foundation that federal rule is based on to be ensured and followed practically (294). It’s

apparent and key that these terms would be explicitly clear in order for the underlying idea and

concept behind this bill to be expressed and supported. It’s stated that “sustainable agriculture

should ‘make the most efficient of … on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural

biological cycles and control’….[and] involves considering the animals’ place in the natural

biological systems… treating them in ways that are probably more humane” (Appleby 296).

From this perspective, the system of sustainable farming involves a usage of animals but

compensating that action through raising them of their more natural cycle of behavior and being

able to handle them with care.

The care is the center piece of the humane sustainable agriculture concept and the driving

force of the bills above which will be suggested in the latter part of this paper. This tandem and

balance between of naturalness and humane care for cattle (animals in general) is a focus that

this paper directs towards and reinforced by the Matte Vaarst and colleagues, Concepts of

Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Livestock Systems (2012). In this paper, the discussion
pivots around the benefits and utility of having an organic based farm system which is in fact

another label and name for ‘humane sustainable farming’. Varrast states that “organic livestock

farming has an explicit goal of improved animal health and welfare compared with non-organic

farming’ (334). While this only offers somewhat of a definite quality of an organic farming, it

does precede the onset of what it means to have this sort of system. Essentially, as the Food and

Farm Bill and Animal-Cruelty Free Act both involve the central idea of “animal welfare

improvement, this concept of ‘organic livestock farming’ is built on that fundamental premise

and goal.