Animal rights extremists want farming to be less efficient

For years, animal rights extremist organizations have pushed for state-level legislation banning frequently-used animal care practices, such as gestation stalls for pregnant sows or cages for laying hens.
In another article, I wrote about how Proposition 12 continues to impact pork production and, to a lesser extent, other farm livestock and poultry.
The Animal Agriculture Alliance said the true motive of these changes is to make it less efficient and more expensive for farmers to raise animals for food, driving up the cost of meat, dairy, poultry, and eggs for consumers. This activism forces consumers to make tough choices about what they can afford to feed their families and forces farmers to make costly changes that may make it impossible to keep their businesses afloat.
This concept also extends to most other farm sectors or commodities. On the one hand, companies are working overtime, bringing out technology to improve, increase efficiency and even better ways of handling, applying and recording to make sure it all matches what the higher-ups want.
Often those people have yet to learn what they are proposing because it comes from an agenda. I will leave that for another time.
The issue of animal rights and the push for legislation to ban certain animal care practices in agriculture is a complex and contentious topic. Animal rights extremist organizations argue that these practices are cruel, and they advocate for changes to improve the welfare of animals in the agricultural industry. On the other hand, agricultural organizations, like the Animal Agriculture Alliance, assert that the real motive behind these changes is to hinder the efficiency of animal farming, leading to increased costs for farmers and, consequently, higher prices for consumers.
Let’s break down some critical points in this debate:
Animal rights activists argue that certain agricultural practices, such as gestation stalls for pregnant sows and cages for laying hens, are inhumane and cause unnecessary animal suffering. They believe animals should have more space and better living conditions to express natural behaviours.
Most of those people have never raised a pig or a chicken and have yet to think of what those ‘new’ rules will do to the animals and billions who those farmers raising those animals keep feeding.
On the other hand, agricultural organizations contend that banning these practices would increase the cost of animal farming. They claim that these confinement methods are more efficient regarding space utilization and disease prevention, allowing farmers to produce food at a lower cost. Removing these methods would require infrastructure and management practices changes, leading to increased expenses for farmers.
The cost of animal farming directly affects the price of meat, dairy, poultry, and eggs for consumers. If the cost of production increases, consumers see higher prices at grocery stores, potentially making it challenging for many families to afford animal products.
Farmers may need more financial assistance if required to make costly changes to their operations. Small-scale and family-owned farms, in particular, may need help to adapt to new regulations or even go out of business, which could have broader implications for the agricultural industry.
What impresses me about the Code of Practises is that the various farm groups develop and implement it to ensure their animals get the best humane treatment possible.
I remember meeting world-renowned veterinarian, consultant and personal friend Dr. John Carr now residing in Australia, telling me how important it is to treat and care for that animal with love and respect. If he toured a hog farm and found someone who mistreated an animal or had a bad attitude, he’d ask the owner to remove that person.
It’s like someone telling the crop farmer he is misusing the land when that farmer needs it for his livelihood.
I advise farmers and consumers to let us be careful how we embrace some of those ideas and organizations and only get something we might wish for if we realize the consequences. More and more showcases show and demonstrate how farmers look after their animals and, crop farmers, their land. Let’s be aware of how quickly, as in California, consumers voted in favour of Proposition 12 without having the faintest idea of the consequences. •