Cruel+Confines+-+N8805172

Student Name - Shelley Jackson Student Number - n8805172 Tutor - Michelle Cornford



__** CULTURAL ARTEFACT **__  The image of an exposed, naked pregnant human female in protest for PETA with the slogan “Go Vegetarian” aims to depict the enclosure and cruel confinement of a Sow Stall, where mature female pigs (sows) are treated as little more than automatic breeding machines. It is here that these sentient beings are repeatedly artificially inseminated to produce litter after litter of piglets in inhumane gestation and farrowing crates. The aim of this cramped confinement is to replenish the ‘stocks’ driven by our consumption of pork and pork related products by maximising the number of pigs in a given area thus decreasing the labour expenses of managing the animals. When a sow fails to produce an adequate yield of piglets, she will then be slaughtered. Sow stalls put profit before the welfare of the animal.

__** THE PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE **__ Sow stalls are one of the methods employed in today’s modern industrialised agriculture called ‘factory-farming’. A sow-stall usually consists of a crate made of steel bars, a concrete floor with slats to allow faecal matter to fall through and with dimension of that which is just larger than the pigs body (about two (2) metres in length by sixty (60) centimetres in width). Sow stalls are too small to allow the pig to feely move around, let alone move from a standing to laying position. This confinement also defies the natural social and physiological behaviours to explore and make a nest when she is close to giving birth (yes, sows do make nests) to provide a soft, safe and warm environment for her piglets. This is in stark contrast to the harsh, rigid and cold platform afforded by the sow-stalls and farrowing crates that a factory-farmed sow and her piglets endure. These harsh conditions factory-farmed animals endure have a profound effect on their health, welfare and sanity, to be treated as merely an item in the inventory and disposed of when no longer producing a high-enough quota.

__** LITERATURE REVIEW **__

Factory farming is the modern large-scale industrial practice of raising animals for food in extreme confinement. The purpose of raising animals like this is part of a systemised effort to produce the highest yielding output for the lowest cost input by reducing the human profile involved in the production of these animals (See [|Economies of scale and scope]). This concept is part in due to the ‘McDonalisation’ of many industries in today’s world, where the almighty dollar rules. As such, the method employed by factory farming inevitably disregards animal welfare and abandons thought to the basic natural instincts when animals are treated as a commodity rather than acknowledge them as a beings that have social, physiological and psychological needs.


 * CHOOSE THE RED PILL NEO. **

 Each year in Australia, approximately five (5) million pigs are slaughtered for their flesh, approximately ninety-five percent (95%) of these pigs were raised in factory-farms called Piggeries (Animals Australia Unleashed, 2013.). It is in these piggeries where it is a veritable production line of sows in either a stage of gestation or with suckling new-born young. Various stalls / crates are used for each status, a [|gestation stall] for a pregnant sow or a [|farrowing crate] for a sow with piglets. After farrowing, a sow would not normally go into estrus again until about 7-18 months after her last litter of piglets (Humane Society.org, 2009). This is not the case with piggery sows as approximately ten (10) days after they are born, piglets are separated from their mother. Once the piglets are gone the sow is then impregnated again and moved to a gestation crate for the cycle to repeat itself again. This cycle can continue for up to three to four years. However, the sow is usually ‘spent’ by the second year and subsequently taken to slaughter (PETA.org, 2013.)


 * WHY ANIMAL PROTECTION / CRUELTY LAWS DON’T APPLY TO FACTORY FARMED ANIMALS. **

In Australia, the treatment of animals is mostly governed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Acts (POCTA) in each respective state or territory. However, unlike companion animals such as dogs and cats etc. farm animals or animals for meat production don’t fall under these legislations, instead they are governed by each industry’s code of practice (Lawyers for Animals, 2013.) For example, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals act in 1986 (including amendments as at 1 December, 2012) states that the purpose of the act is to (a) prevent cruelty to animals; and (b) to encourage the considerate treatment of animals; and (c) to improve the level of community awareness about the prevention of cruelty to animals. The act also states that any procedure of surgical nature, or procedure which may cause undue harm to the animal must be done by a qualified veterinary practitioner and with measures to alleviate undue pain to the animal by means of anaesthesia. However, in section 6, subsection 1 of the POCTA, the Act states that the Act does not apply to “the keeping, treatment, handling, transportation, sale, killing, hunting, shooting, catching, trapping, netting, marking, care, use, husbandry or management of any animal or class of animals (other than a farm animal or class of farm animals) which is carried out in accordance with a Code of Practice. Nor does it apply to “any act or practice with respect to the farming, transport, sale or killing of any farm animal which is carried out in accordance with a Code of Practice” (NSW, 1986.). The Animal Welfare Code of Practice in Commercial Pig Production (Industry and Investment NSW, 2009) states in Division 6, Clause 24 //Surgical procedures on male pigs//, that “A producer must ensure that a [|surgical procedure to render a male pig sterile] is not performed on a male pig over the age of 21 days unless the procedure is performed after this day by a veterinary practitioner under anaesthesia. Justifying castration and other inhumane treatment before a certain age does not mean that any less pain, shock or that the animal is any less traumatised by the event. Therefore, there are many loop-holes to be found in the codes that make allowances for abysmal treatment for pigs and other animals on factory farms which means that usually even the codes themselves are stretched (Weaver. et al, 2004.)


 * STILL WILD AT HEART. **

Pigs are social animals. Whilst selective breeding for production related traits is commonplace in today’s pig industry leading to the regular appearance and physiology of domestic pigs, comparative studies show that domesticated animals still display habits and are fundamentally the same as their wild counterparts, for which they are descended from (European Commission. 1997.) Farrowing sows regardless of whether they are wild or domesticated still purvey the basic desire to build a nest (Gustafsson, et al, 1999.) When farrowing sows are in commercialised conditions, that is, confined to farrowing crates, they still display this desire but are inhibited from acting out their nest-building behaviour. There is ample evidence to suggest that confined sows suffer both physiologically and experience reduced welfare by farrowing in uncompleted nests (Cronin, 1994.)


 * UNHAPPY AS A PIG-IN-MUD **

The welfare of factory-farmed pigs can be better understood by uncovering the veil in which the meat-production industry attempt to hide behind. After a piglet has been taken from its mother, it is then processed, if not already done, by having its tail docked and [|eye teeth clipped or ground down]. This is to prevent injury to other pigs that can result from aggression caused by high-density housing whilst in the fattening area before they are sorted to be destined as either a breeding pig or a pig for slaughter. In either event, the close confinement, aggression of dominant pigs all contribute to the high levels of stress hormones (cortisol) able to be found in housed pigs saliva. In these crowded conditions, pigs can resort to stress-related behaviours such as cannibalism or stereotypical behaviour such as bar-biting, head-weaving and repeated nudging, all of which are a sign of poor welfare and the presence of these stereotypies can mean that the animal is being driven insane (Weaver. et al, 2004.) Sows in stalls cannot exercise, let alone turn around, they can barely go from the static movements of lying-down to standing up. The lack of conditioning that exercise brings means that sows suffer from weak bones and damaged joints due to the inability to exercise dynamic movement (Marchant. et al, 1997) along with all the other ill-health associated with sedentary activity.


 * ON THE BRIGHTER SIDE.. **

There is a growing unrest in today’s society with the growing knowledge about factory-farming processes. Organisations that rally towards animal rights like PETA, Animal Rights Australia or the RSPCA shine light on unethical issues to do with sow-stall housing and other immoral and downright cruel treatment of factory farmed animals. It is evident that consumers on the downstream have over the last couple of years, started to influence the middle and upper streams of producers and policy makers by choosing to not support certain products. For example, in January, 2013, grocery giant Coles has responded by gaining a commitment from their producers to end the use of sow-stalls and [|launched a campaign] where all of their branded pork, ham and bacon products are now guaranteed sow-stall free. This is following a commitment to no longer sell Coles-branded battery hen eggs, instead only selling free-range or barn-laid. The use of sow-stalls has already been phased out in the United Kingdom, Sweden and Switzerland, many more countries are following with New Zealand implementing the ban in 2015 (Voiceless, 2012) and Australia planning to phase them out by 2017 (Weaver. et al, 2004.)


 * In conclusion.. **

The pressure of factory-farming agribusiness by consumers to move away from the cruel unethical approaches to animal treatment is slowly starting to resonate more highly to action within consumerism. However, it is the relative lack of solutions that deal with global demand, the ethics associated with animal treatment and the environment that highlight the complexity of the factory-farming issue

__** CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS **__

[|McDonaldisation] is the term invented by George Ritzer to describe the sociological phenomenon that has progressively occurred in our society since the turn of the twentieth (20th) century. McDonaldisation didn't just occur with the conception of the fast food giant McDonalds, where the name was aptly coined from, actually stemmed from the automobile factory magnate Henry Ford, who envisioned the concept of an assembly line where the production of automobiles, which were normally assembled by hand using cumbersome crude machinery, could be made more efficient to increase productivity. This process was revolutionary. Since then, the rationalisation of more simple, yet streamlined logical processes has been taken to the extreme. McDonalisation takes a task and breaks that task down into smaller tasks, this process is repeated down until the smallest and irrational level. The result being actions, movements, methods that can be completed every time to produce controllable, predictable and calculable outcomes all whist increasing efficiency, which are the four dimension of McDonalisation coined by Ritzer. A formally rationalised system leaves people with little choice whilst achieving its goal objectives in the name of profit. Weber’s theory of formal rationality cautioned about a system, which became so much so like an “iron cage” that there was no escape and no alternatives other than the extremely rationalised (or irrational) ones (Weber and Kalberg, 2013). McDonalisation in the meat-industry has made meat readily available and cheaper to purchase. In 2009, Safran Froer wrote and exposé on factory-farming and the fact of how the relatively cheap price of meat products doesn’t in any way compensate for the hidden costs to public health, the environment and the ethics associated with animal slaughter en masse. Froer writes about the cruelty and suffering of these animals endured by these animals right up until they die, which at most times is not quick but rather an enduring act of torture and savagery in the processing itself and at the deliberate hands of some workers who’s emotional responses can lead to an arrogant disconnect. An informed consumer can be the catalyst of change that affects the very way in which food inevitably gets produced. Deciding whether to choose flesh or plant, factory-farmed or local farm, an individual cannot change the world but it is the cause and compounding effect of what a consumer puts on their plate that shapes the values of not only themselves but also their family, local community and eventually as a nation.


 * __ REFLECTION __**

The cultural artefact paints a very real and poignant position on exposing the degradation that is imposed to sows in sow-stalls. To me, I believe that the image achieves the objective because what organisations such as PETA who protest against animal cruelty also aim to educate and remind people by making the facts available to public when most people wouldn’t have any idea about what actually goes on or conversely, prefer not to know. Having little exposure to animals makes it much easier to push aside questions and not consider how it might affect their treatment. This is because in today’s world of convenience there is a large separation between the packaged, clean meat that we buy in the supermarket compared to seeing the animals in which it came from, who experience a very different world. Having a naked human female in a cage paints an intimate picture, one that we as humans can mentally grasp because it breaks down the feelings of ‘otherness’ that we as humans may fail to properly empathise if it were a picture of an animal. A pregnant women can be considered vulnerable and they need to be protected because they are carrying an innocent life. Therefore, I believe the artefact successfully asks “Would we subject one of our own to this type of confinement? No. Then why would you allow this to happen to other sentient beings?”. By turning a blind eye to this concept, have we inevitably closed our hearts in the process?. As a result of this assessment piece, and over the course of the semester, I have learnt a lot about the capabilities and responsibilities that we, as humans and as an individual can have on the lives of other beings. The thing to consider is that it is easy to blame factory-farming for what occurs but really, it is the demand from increasing consumerism that drives the farming processes to produce meat sustainably for the cheapest price, at the unfortunate expense of the animals. This new information has evolved my role as a consumer, so right now I am living as a ‘conflicted’ meat-eater but, whilst it may be a quaint notion, I have started on a journey to phase out animal flesh and practice vegetarianism by 2014. I have planned my schedule around how to only shop at the local markets from local producers and have joined many organisations that are advocating against the cruelty and mistreatment of animals. And it makes me a more contented person knowing that this information has profoundly affected me to make a worthwhile change both from an ethical and environmental stand-point. To quote Martin Luther King “The time is always right to do what’s right” Lastly, those four basic concepts as stated by Ritzer, have invaded modern day life to the extent where most persons tend to live by the clock, where modern day conveniences over-rule daily activities, so much so that we become human doings instead of human beings, does this mean that we have inevitably sacrificed a bit of our humanity to become machines ourselves? To end with a quote from Peter Kreeft, which may provide some food for thought. “If you can’t take time to do nothing, you’re a slave to doing. Doing nothing is a radical, revolutionary act. It frees you from the universal slavery of our age: slavery to the clock. The clock measures doing but not being.”

__** REFERENCES **__

Animals Australia Unleashed (2013). Pigs. Retrieved 26 October, 2013 from http://www.unleashed.org.au/animals/pigs.php

Cronin, G. M., Smith, J. A., Hodge, F. M., & Hemsworth, P. H. (1994). The behaviour of primiparous sows around farrowing in response to restraint and straw bedding. //Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 39//(3–4), 269-280. doi: []

Currey. D., Hinote. B.P. (2011). The Evolution of Industrial Production: McDonalisation and Population Health. Retrieved from http://capone.mtsu.edu/scientia/ojs/index.php/seth/article/view/48

European Commission. 1997. The welfare of intensively kept pigs. Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, September 30. www.ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/out17_en.pdf.

Foer, J. S. (2009). //Eating Animals// [EBL version]. New York, NY: Hachete Book Group. Retrieved from http://m.friendfeed-media.com/e33711680dd2938c13a33042fc28ed2b926105ab

Gustafsson, M., Jensen, P., de Jonge, F. H., Illmann, G., & Spinka, M. (1999). Maternal behaviour of domestic sows and crosses between domestic sows and wild boar. //Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65//(1), 29-42. doi: []

Humane Society.org (2009). More About Pigs: The underestimated animal. Retrieved October 18, 2013, from http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/pigs/pigs_more.html#.UnMTFflRbFI

Lawyers for Animals, (2013). The Law: Fact: Australian law offers very little protection for animals. Retrieved October 26, 2013 from, http://lawyersforanimals.org.au/information/the-law/

Marchant, J. N., Rudd, A. R., & Broom, D. M. (1997). The effects of housing on heart rate of gestating sows during specific behaviours. //Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 55//(1–2), 67-78. doi: []

 McDonalisation: What is McDonaldisation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.mcdonaldization.com/whatisit.shtml

NSW Government (2009).Department of Industry and Investment: Animal Welfare Code of Practice – Pig Production. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/act+200+1979+FIRST+0+N/

PETA. Org (n.d.) Pigs: Intelligent Animals Suffering in Factory Farms and Slaughter Houses. Retrieved 26 October, 2013, from http://www.peta.org/issues/Animals-Used-for-Food/pigs-intelligent-animals-suffering-in-factory-farms-and-slaughterhouses.aspx

PETA.org (n.d.) Pig Transport and Slaughter: //Transport terror//. Retrieved 20October, 2013, from http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/pig-transport-slaughter.aspx

Prevention of Cruelty to animals act 1986 (NSW). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/act+200+1979+FIRST+0+N/

RSPCA (2011). RSPCA Australia Knowledgebase: //What are the animal welfare issues associated with pig farming//. Retrieved 19October, 2013, from http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-are-the-animal-welfare-issues-associated-with-pig-farming_109.html Spiritual disciplines handbook: Practices that transform us. (2005). //Publishers Weekly, 252//(38), 82. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/197067724?accountid=13380

LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT REFLECTION TASK:

Comment 1 []

Comment 2 []