Lots of people rave about organic produce, and there is often a moral high ground attached to people spending their hard-earned pennies to buy more natural and in particular, ‘animal-friendly’ products. However, there is increasing debate over the validity of claims that rearing in a more ‘natural environment’ is in fact beneficial to the animals involved.
Yes, animals crammed into tight spaces with the primary aim of intensifying farming to maximise profit may not be a shining example of animal welfare, and I think most would agree that it is a much more pleasing to see animals freely grazing in lush green fields. However, when we’re in the supermarket, how many of us would actively choose to go for the most expensive cut on the deli counter, or choose to buy the more expensive eggs? It is often easy to forget the link between those cows in the field and the price tag on that steak.
But is it better for animals to be organically reared? There is no denying that if I were a chicken, I would rather be roaming free than trapped in a cage with thousands of other egg-laying machines (despite stringent laws on animal welfare in such establishments). However, the case might be different if I were in a field, but denied access to basic treatments such as worming and vaccinations. (NB treatments of organic animals usually aim to be natural, and if an animal is sick then it is not simply ignored). When it comes to farming there are diseases and parasites which are inevitable. By not administering prophylactic treatment these animals become particularly susceptible to such problems, which may ultimately lead to an even lower quality of life – and I think part of the problem is that this is subjective. I recently read a claim that organic chickens are more ‘stress-free’ (although other research suggests that the threat of predators and other stimuli in a more open environment actually increases stress to equal or greater levels than battery-reared chickens) and therefore able to fight off diseases more readily. I would argue that stress-free living is not enough to fend off illnesses in farmed animals…
During my work experience at the abattoir, it was interesting to note that far more meat from non-organic farms passed meat inspection, whereas organic meat was often rejected due to disease (particularly pneumonia) and parasites such as heartworm and liver flukes. Can it really be argued that the organic animals are healthier and ‘happier’ than non-organic animals?
And now for a bit of a disclaimer: This is merely my speculation on what I have observed and read on the topic. I am not trying to say that organic farming is cruel, or any worse for animals than non-organic farming. I am just highlighting a debate in current affairs which I find interesting. It is also important to note that there are not two black and white ends of the spectrum - there are varying degrees of organic farming, e.g. in some livestock no artificial chemicals will be administered, but feeds may be provided that are not organic etc. I would be interested to hear what other people have to say about this debate, so please leave comments on your news and views on this!
