Strengthening US organic standards on animal health and welfare

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.

[1]  P. Lammers,et al.  Performance of gestating sows in bedded hoop barns and confinement stalls. , 2007, Journal of animal science.

[2]  M. Appleby,et al.  A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. , 2005, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[3]  A. Butterworth,et al.  Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare , 2004 .

[4]  M. Appleby What causes crowding? Effects of space, facilities and group size on behaviour, with particular reference to furnished cages for hens , 2004, Animal Welfare.

[5]  M. Dawkins,et al.  Using behaviour to assess animal welfare , 2004, Animal Welfare.

[6]  W. Lockeretz,et al.  Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture , 2003 .

[7]  C. Hewson,et al.  What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequences. , 2003, The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne.

[8]  H. A. Elson,et al.  Development of furnished cages for laying hens , 2002, British poultry science.

[9]  L. Keeling,et al.  The Push-Door for Measuring Motivation in Hens: Laying Hens are Motivated to Perch at Night , 2002, Animal Welfare.

[10]  J. L. Albright,et al.  Tail-docking alters fly numbers, fly-avoidance behaviors, and cleanliness, but not physiological measures. , 2001, Journal of dairy science.

[11]  B. O. Hughes,et al.  Laying hens in large flocks in a perchery system: influence of stocking density on location, use of resources and behaviour. , 1999, British poultry science.

[12]  L. Keeling,et al.  Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. , 1999, British poultry science.

[13]  J. R. Morris,et al.  The effect of the Hurnik-Morris (HM) system on sow reproduction, attrition, and longevity. , 1998, Journal of animal science.

[14]  G. Wang,et al.  Wet litter and perches as risk factors for the development of foot pad dermatitis in floor-housed hens. , 1998, British poultry science.

[15]  N. Lambe,et al.  Ability of laying hens to negotiate horizontal perches at different heights, separated by different angles. , 1997, British poultry science.

[16]  J. R. Morris,et al.  The effect of the Hurnik-Morris (HM) system on sow locomotion, skin integrity, and litter health. , 1997, Journal of animal science.

[17]  H. R. Andersen,et al.  Influence of floor space allowance and access sites to feed trough on the production of calves and young bulls and on the carcass and meat quality of young bulls , 1997 .

[18]  M. Appleby,et al.  Effect of perches in laying cages on welfare and production of hens , 1992 .

[19]  S. Kondo,et al.  The effect of group size and space allowance on the agonistic and spacing behavior of cattle , 1989 .

[20]  Scott Gb,et al.  Perching behaviour and preferences for different perch designs among laying hens , 1998 .

[21]  R. Tempelman,et al.  Fertility. , 1997, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.