- Email: [email protected]
Confined management of farm animals from the ethical, legal and ethological point of view
395
Applied Animal Ethology, 7 (1981) Ekevier Scientific
Publishing
395-396 Company, Amsterdam
- Printed in The Netherlands
Book Review FARM ANIMALS
In tensivhaltung von Nu tz tieren aus ethischer, rech tlicher und ethologischer Sicht (Confined management of farm animals from the ethical, legal and ethological point of view). by G.M. Teutsch, E. Von Loeper, G. Martin, J. Miiller, A. Nabholz, G. Van Putten and H.H. Sambraus. Birkhiiuser Verlag, Basel, Boston, Stuttgart,. 1979, DM 29.00, ISBN 3-7643-1119-3. G.M. Teutsch, in the first chapter, deals with “the question of admissability concerning the confined management of farm animals” from the ethical point of view. He discusses the question in relation to which ethics are the basis for the protection of animals. Then follows the application of these ethics with regard to the admissability of the confined management of farm animals. For Teutsch, the usual exploitation of farm animals with the intention of realizing a maximum profit is not ethical but economical, and does not guarantee protection of animals. This attitude is not according to the requirements of the ethics accepting animals as fellow creatures. In the second chapter, E. v. Loeper, as a lawyer, asks if “food supplies through the abuse of animals” are justifiable. This chapter is almost intelligible for non-lawyers. Briefly, he says that the methods of confined livestock-management, especially perpetual confinement in cages, tying-stalls and pens, are illegal in several respects and to a particularly serious extent. G. Martin, in the third chapter, tries to give an ethological statement about “laying hens kept in cages”. She maintains that “Among all ethologists studying the problems of hens, exists the unambiguous opinion that the wellbeing of caged hens is drastically disturbed and that caging conditions, as practised now, lead to suffering”. J. Milller, with co-authors A. Nabholz, G. v. Putten and H.H. Sambraus, in the fourth chapter, explains the “Requirements for the protection of pigs”. The modernization of agriculture nowadays has brought a change from “pig-husbandry” to “pig-production”. In the meaning of the authors, the modem production-systems do not take into account the species-specific requirements of pigs. They developed a list of minimum requirements for pig-production. The literature reviews of the first three chapters give the impression of an unbalanced selection. In particular, some important papers of Duncan and Siegel with regard to hen-behaviour are not quoted. Furthermore, in these three chapters the authors did not point out that the requirements of highly selected farm animals are different from those of lesser selected breeds or wild species, and there is no approach to the ethology of domestication as the key to the requirements of farm animals. Their logical conclusion is an absolute refusal to accept modem confined management systems for farm
396
animals, but the reviewer thinks this to be a step too far. Even the authors of the fourth chapter neglected the ethology of domestication, but on the other hand they gave a wide balance of quoted literature and they developed clear guidelines for keeping pigs in confinement systems, taking into account their species-specific requirements. In short, this book gives a typical impression of the unbalanced argumentation in the field of animal protection. K. ZEEB
(Freiburg, W. Germany)
Applied Animal Ethology, 7 (1981) Ekevier Scientific
Publishing
395-396 Company, Amsterdam
- Printed in The Netherlands
Book Review FARM ANIMALS
In tensivhaltung von Nu tz tieren aus ethischer, rech tlicher und ethologischer Sicht (Confined management of farm animals from the ethical, legal and ethological point of view). by G.M. Teutsch, E. Von Loeper, G. Martin, J. Miiller, A. Nabholz, G. Van Putten and H.H. Sambraus. Birkhiiuser Verlag, Basel, Boston, Stuttgart,. 1979, DM 29.00, ISBN 3-7643-1119-3. G.M. Teutsch, in the first chapter, deals with “the question of admissability concerning the confined management of farm animals” from the ethical point of view. He discusses the question in relation to which ethics are the basis for the protection of animals. Then follows the application of these ethics with regard to the admissability of the confined management of farm animals. For Teutsch, the usual exploitation of farm animals with the intention of realizing a maximum profit is not ethical but economical, and does not guarantee protection of animals. This attitude is not according to the requirements of the ethics accepting animals as fellow creatures. In the second chapter, E. v. Loeper, as a lawyer, asks if “food supplies through the abuse of animals” are justifiable. This chapter is almost intelligible for non-lawyers. Briefly, he says that the methods of confined livestock-management, especially perpetual confinement in cages, tying-stalls and pens, are illegal in several respects and to a particularly serious extent. G. Martin, in the third chapter, tries to give an ethological statement about “laying hens kept in cages”. She maintains that “Among all ethologists studying the problems of hens, exists the unambiguous opinion that the wellbeing of caged hens is drastically disturbed and that caging conditions, as practised now, lead to suffering”. J. Milller, with co-authors A. Nabholz, G. v. Putten and H.H. Sambraus, in the fourth chapter, explains the “Requirements for the protection of pigs”. The modernization of agriculture nowadays has brought a change from “pig-husbandry” to “pig-production”. In the meaning of the authors, the modem production-systems do not take into account the species-specific requirements of pigs. They developed a list of minimum requirements for pig-production. The literature reviews of the first three chapters give the impression of an unbalanced selection. In particular, some important papers of Duncan and Siegel with regard to hen-behaviour are not quoted. Furthermore, in these three chapters the authors did not point out that the requirements of highly selected farm animals are different from those of lesser selected breeds or wild species, and there is no approach to the ethology of domestication as the key to the requirements of farm animals. Their logical conclusion is an absolute refusal to accept modem confined management systems for farm
396
animals, but the reviewer thinks this to be a step too far. Even the authors of the fourth chapter neglected the ethology of domestication, but on the other hand they gave a wide balance of quoted literature and they developed clear guidelines for keeping pigs in confinement systems, taking into account their species-specific requirements. In short, this book gives a typical impression of the unbalanced argumentation in the field of animal protection. K. ZEEB
(Freiburg, W. Germany)