In general, I agree but I think there is a side to this people tend to ignore. There are those practices that improve profits but certainly do not improve animal welfare (i.e. no pain relief during/after castration or other invasive procedures, the way chickens are slaughtered, docking dairy cows, etc.). The only way animal welfare can improve across the board is if it's either legislated or if there is a demand for that kind of product. An animal that is treated better is more likely to produce a better product but this only comes into play if consumers are able to recognize the difference and either pay more for it or simply create demand for it.
A lot of LA vets are singularly devoted to animal health but I think there is a large portion which come to view themselves as simply business consultants and focus almost exclusively on the farmer's bottom line. I think that kind of attitude is a disservice to both public health and animal welfare.
OK, I had to address this after sitting through a thoroughly intrigueing lecture on pain treatment in beef and dairy industries and lots of discussions with the LA vets at our school. While I quoted a specific passage, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just my opinion in general.
First thing first; if you anger the farmer, they will find another vet or will go without vet treatment. Coming from a very rural background, I know enough people who are estranged from the vet community and believe a bullet is far better than even having to talk to a vet who is less that tactful about how animals should be treated. Not saying I agree with it, but if you make people feel evil or treat them as such, they can easily choose not to deal with you or the profession. Many times farmer are balancing a livelihood that isn't affluent with the needs/costs to run a farm. It isn't an easy balance, and even when you think you have it figured out, a glut of dairy cows could drop the price of milk, or a mass cull due to an infection on another farm can cripple your farm, etc.
Second, the research in pain management for livestock is fairly limited, and most of it is still coming out of Canada and Europe. In some ways, that means the options are limited for treatment for animals that produce for food. If you want to alleviate suffering, get involved with that research.
Third, the quickest way to get a farmer or owner of any animal to cooperate with a vet is to offer them what they need; effective and efficient management that increases the net profit. That means staying educated and being able to communicate, in a supportive way, how humane methods work better.
Some examples; using lidocain and cauterization in debudding of dairy calfs results in a lack of gain (in mass) for 1 week, vs 3 weeks without lidocain with cauterization, and 4 weeks without either.
Raising poultry at 80% of capacity with more routine monitoring increasing dressed weight by 30%/carcass. That will, for most producers, result in a net gain.
However, alot of this information has not been available in a statistical format, and then, once it was, it wasn't well communicated or illustrated. Debudding with lidocaine is assumed to take longer because it takes 5 minutes for the nerve block to work....but if you set up the system right, not dealing with a freaked out animal that is trampling everything around it, throwing itself about, risking contusions and such, the lidocaine debudding can actually be faster, resulting in LESS cost.
If the farmer trusts the vet, and the vet communicates and illustrates this well, and treats the farmer with respect, we are far more likely to alter the current treatment of pain management, than if we just go in calling them sadistic and such.
As much as I would love to say demand will improve pain management, I don't like testosterone toughened steaks, and a lot of consumers won't either, so not castrating isn't likely. But showing a farmer that managing pain will increase profit by increasing lean mass will alter the use of pain management.
As for my personal view; animals are resources, and that includes the furry critters we keep in our home. Otherwise, we wouldn't be ok with the military having dogs or police using dogs, or even my SAR dogs. We wouldn't use dogs in reading programs or pet therapy programs. I do believe that we have a responsibility as humans to decide what we find acceptable. I am picky about what I eat 90% of the time (but I do eat out at times, so 10% of the time I don't get to be super picky.) By picky, I mean I purchase meat and eggs from local producers. I limit my consumption of meat (easier with the higher prices.) I helped my folks turn their farm into an organic farm of speciality production for high end resturaunts.
There is a lot we can do as vets and as consumers to alter the systems, but it can't be done by expecting immediate and drastic changes, and it has to be done with tact and respect.
If you believe in the well being of animals while still accepting them as resources, consider Temple Grandin's work...it is an excellent model for making the situation better for the animals in a couple of components of food production, while still embracing the entire point of domesticated animals.
This.
