The NFACC said in a release the Code development process includes a survey, launched at the outset of each Code, to capture top-of-mind welfare concerns from any and all stakeholders. Input received will help the Code Development Committee understand the kinds of issues people wish to see considered in the update. Everyone is invited to participate; the survey for this Code will be open until July 25, 2024 and is available at www.nfacc.ca/codes-of-practice/sheep.

Fred Baker, CSF board member and Code Committee chair said the updated code will guide the Canadian sheep industry in the production of market lambs, breeding stock, milk and wool for the next decade.

Canada’s Codes of Practice provide critical guidance for the care and handling of farm animals, said the NFACC.

“The NFACC Code development process supports people with varied views on animal welfare to come together with a shared commitment and common goal of achievable advances in farm animal welfare,” Hans Kristensen, chair of NFACC said in the release. “Codes of Practice support progress in animal welfare and the sustainability of Canadian animal agriculture.”

Five Codes – beef cattle, equine, pig, sheep, and poultry – are being updated. The pullet and layer Code is being amended. More details and a timeline outlining the steps and progress made on the respective Codes can be found here.

The post Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Sheep to be updated appeared first on Farmtario.

The National Farm Animal Care Council is involved, and the update will be in line with the National Farm Animal Care Council’s Code Development practice.

The Code Development process will begin with a survey to capture welfare concerns from all stakeholders. Results from the surveys will help the Code Committee understand the issues stakeholders want to see in the update. Everyone can participate in the survey.

The Code update will bring the industry into alignment with responsible practices, many of which have already been implemented by producers, said Nathan Phinney, President of the Canadian Cattle Association.

Canada’s Codes of Practice provide guidance for the care and handling of farm animals. They serve as educational tools, reference materials for regulations, and the foundation for farm animal care assessment programs. Five Codes of Practice are being updated. They include beef cattle, equine, pig, sheep, and poultry. The Code for pullet and layer Codes are also being amended.

The post Beef stakeholders invited to weigh in on code of practice appeared first on Farmtario.

In an information update dated May 1, NFACC said its board has now decided “no further action will be taken” by the council to update the 2001 Transport Code.

NFACC, a division of Animal Health Canada, in December 2018 had started work to update the Transport Code — which meant setting up a new multi-species code covering animals from 14 of its separate national on-farm codes of practice.

Since then, however, the Lacombe, Alta.-based organization said, it has had to take into consideration the February 2019 update to federal regulations governing transportation of animals in Canada.

The federal regulations having been “materially and significantly amended,” and “evergreen interpretive guidance” added, made it “difficult to envision the role and purpose of an updated Code,” the council said.

After that came the COVID-19 pandemic, which NFACC said halted all in-person meetings and required its working groups and code development committee to meet exclusively online, which “impeded the relationship-building opportunities and open dialogue that in-person meetings offer.”

On top of that, the Transport Code was the first to be set up using NFACC’s code development process (CDP) but not intended for on-farm use. It included care of animals during transportation as well as when offloaded at certain intermediary sites.

Furthermore, NFACC said, the plan to update the Transport Code had been initiated by the council itself, rather than by any national stakeholder group or other primary stakeholders — “which has led to additional challenges” in following the council’s usual CDP.

And since there’s no one national organization devoted to livestock and poultry transport, there would be no lead body to take up the roles and responsibilities needed to shepherd a new code to its conclusion.

‘Disappointed’

The update process for a new Transport Code was funded by the AgriAssurance program via the former federal-provincial Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) policy framework, and NFACC said development of the new Transport Code was always expected to take as long as that program allowed.

But by August last year, NFACC said, it had “become apparent” that a finalized transportation code wouldn’t be achievable by the time CAP expired at the end of March this year.

NFACC in August called a pause in the code development process, and it said with the remaining time and funding under CAP, it would instead pursue a risk assessment and “collaboration planning exercise.”

That two-phase data collection process ran from last November to February this year, NFACC said. The risk assessment looked at “potential options and the inherent risks” with different courses of action, while the planning exercise looked at the “top priorities” of the council and of project stakeholders in weighing the next steps.

Taken together, NFACC said May 1, a “careful review” of the data “supported the conclusion that the Code update could not proceed.”

“We recognize that many of you are disappointed in this development, and we understand and share in that disappointment,” NFACC said.

“While the destination wasn’t what we envisioned when we started down this road in 2018, nevertheless, there were many positive aspects that emerged from the project,” the council said, noting the new alignment of the transportation sections of 11 on-farm codes of practice with the updated federal Health of Animals Regulations.

The work toward a new Transport Code also provided “opportunity for stakeholders to participate and collaborate” and the top-of-mind survey and report at the outset have “helped NFACC in gaining greater awareness of current evolving concerns of stakeholders and interested parties.”

NFACC said the process also led to “greater sharing of inter-industry information and enhanced communication” and “affirmation of NFACC’s role and the guardrails in place to support CDP work.”

NFACC’s work schedule over the next five years includes updates of its code of practice for beef cattle, code for sheep, and code for hatching eggs, breeders, chickens and turkeys. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Animal care council won’t update livestock transport code of practice appeared first on Farmtario.

“Whether you have a small herd or a large herd, the impact of the revised Goat Code of Practice on your farm will be the same,” stated Ontario Goat President Dirk Boogerd. “It is important for goat farmers to remember that the final Goat Code of Practice will be the minimum standard of care expected on your farm,” he added.

The Code development and review process is led by the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC). The Goat Code Development committee had broad representation among industry stakeholders, including meat, dairy and fibre goat producers from Ontario.

The Draft Goat Code of Practice is now posted on-line for to review and to provide feedback and comments.

The final code is expected to be released in Fall 2021.

The post Goat code open for public comment appeared first on Farmtario.

Marina von Keyserlingk, a professor in animal welfare at the University of British Columbia, said she has given a lot of thought about the future of animal agriculture and the growing public disconnect.

Why it matters: Less connection to farms means that few people have a concept of how animal agriculture works, leading to challenges with their interpretation of farming practices.

“What is the vision that we see for our animal industries tomorrow? How do we convince the world that we’re doing the right thing?” she said during a recent webinar organized by the National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council.

Social licence to produce and provide food animals depends on the industry’s ability to keep in step with community values, said von Keyserlingk. That means those in animal agriculture must be open to change.

She described a UBC study on public perceptions of dairy cattle care in which participants actually lost confidence in production methods after seeing a working dairy and being accurately informed of its various practices.

“Educating the public I don’t think is going to work. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be transparent. I think one of the greatest risks to animal agriculture is the public finding out about practices that they had no idea about and then being shocked about it.”

Von Keyserlingk said those involved in animal agriculture cannot afford to be rigid in their stance on how they do things, and accept that they can’t do certain things anymore because consumers don’t approve. Castration without pain mitigation is one example.

“Truly, what’s been happening so far is that so often we are placed in this reactionary position. Somebody criticizes us and then all of a sudden we’re just on the defensive. And then we just spill information and we tell the stories that we’re proud of.

“We don’t talk about what we’re not proud of because we don’t know how to talk about it. And I think instead of that, I think what we really need to do is we really need to sit down and develop a vision of the industry.”

Barbara Cartwright, chief executive officer of Humane Canada, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, said her group’s participation in development and updates to the national farm animal codes of practice has been useful in the past but now she perceives an erosion of trust and reduced transparency in farm animal production practices.

Different attention-getting tactics by animal activist groups have caused tension and mental health challenges for farmers, she said.

Given that animal welfare workers and veterinarians also experience mental health challenges and have a higher suicide rate, “it strikes me that if vets, farmers, animal welfare workers are all undergoing very similar stresses, that first of all we need to think about why that is because we’re all intersecting with animals, and second, thinking about the negotiation table, how challenging it is to come to negotiation if we lack communication, we lack understanding about each other,” said Cartwright.

Over the last three years, Humane Canada has developed principles surrounding humane animal treatment along with indicators it can measure to gauge progress.

It defines humaneness as “the treatment of an animal in a manner that ensures its welfare and well-being in circumstances where a human is or should be exercising care, custody, control or use of an animal.”

Cartwright said she supports the National Farm Animal Care Council process and said it should have long-term reliable funding so it can continue its consensus-building pattern that involves diverse opinions and groups when establishing codes.

“Without really deft facilitation it can go off the rails, and so let’s invest in the National Farm Animal Care Council. It’s good for social licence.”

She also said so-called “ag gag” laws, those that would restrict access and observation of farms and farm practices, are “a path toward increased acrimony and frustration.

“We want to move toward more transparency. We want to see more accountability. We don’t want to see more farmers suffering from mental health and suicide… we don’t want to see farmers being afraid that someone’s going to come onto their farm and harm them or harm their animals,” said Cartwright.

She sees the way forward as continuing dialogue and the willingness among livestock producers to make changes upon which all can agree.

This article was originally published at The Western Producer.

The post Education campaigns about agriculture have drawbacks: professor appeared first on Farmtario.

The scope of the code of practice covers cattle, pigs, poultry, sheep and equine for road transportation, said Jackie Wepruk of the National Farm Animal Care Council.

Why it matters: Consumers are becoming more aware and more concerned that sound animal welfare practices are adhered to, which can drive producer requirements.

“We need to make sure the codes are in line with regulatory expectations. It is very important to have the Canadian Food Inspection Agency included in this update,” she said at a recent animal welfare meeting hosted by the North American Meat Institute.

The work should start next spring for completion by 2023. It involves stakeholders who will have to pay attention to what is practical and what the science says about animal welfare, cleanliness, sanitation, driving practices and species specific vulnerabilities.

The science committee work is done and has examined the effect of transport duration, time off feed and water, rest intervals, environmental conditions, loading density and factors related to animal welfare.

Agriculture Canada researcher Karen Swartzkopf-Genswein has led many transportation trials to understand what is happening to animals in transit.

“It is probably one of the most stressful events in an animal’s life,” she said in a webinar last fall hosted by the Beef Cattle Research Council.

Animals may never have been on a livestock trailer and they become stressed as they are loaded and unloaded. They may have travelled a long distance to an auction, they are mixed with unfamiliar cattle, feed and water was restricted and injuries may have happened.

The new government regulations may include shorter duration trips with breaks for rest, feed and water.

“The shorter duration will depend on the type of animal and the conditions of transport,” she said.

Animals transported short distances can also suffer and show physiological effects.

“We really need to do the studies to show what is the best rest period or is it causing more stress than actually leaving them on the trailer. That is something we need to find out,” she said.

Research has looked at everything from the conditions of trailers, the effects of weather and the impacts on animal health.

It is known animals lose weight during transit and when they arrive at the final destination, they are tired.

“It is a feat to maintain balance even for a short period of time so imagine those animals in a trailer over a 10- to 30-hour trip and the energy it takes to keep their balance the entire time,” she said.

Weight loss, or shrink, is correlated with ambient outside temperature and time on the truck.

At 15 C, shrink starts to increase rapidly. For every 1 C rise in ambient outside temperature, shrink increased by 0.04 percent. At 30 hours travel time, shrink starts to plateau. Handlers think it is safe to continue the trip because the animals will not lose any more weight.

“That is not the message we want to send. In fact, all the fluid has been lost and you are getting into potential tissue loss so really that 30-hour mark means the transport should have ended before they start to reach that plateau,” she said.

Stress and shrink may also be linked to long waiting times on trailers. Drivers may have to wait anywhere from one to 15 hours to cross borders, get through traffic or wait to unload at the final destination.

Research found driver experience is important to the welfare of animals. Those with zero to two years of livestock transport experience had more welfare issues compared to those with more than six years of experience.

Fats and feeders had the fewest incidents while cull cows and calves had more problems. The culls may be thin and fragile with weaker immunity.

Another project looked at the fate of 673 cull beef cattle from Manitoba travelling to an Alberta slaughter plant.

Out of 670 animals, 80 carcasses were bruised, with the worst damage done to cattle riding in the doghouse of the trailer. This is to the right of the internal ramp on the upper deck of a multi compartment trailer.

Shipping compromised cattle or unfit cattle are major welfare concerns and researchers found 50 per cent of loads had one compromised cow.

“Poor cow condition at loading is the biggest risk factor in determining condition at offloading. That is not a surprise,” she said.

“Even the best transporters and conditions cannot compensate for poor loading decisions.”

Another study examined cattle arriving at auctions as well as federal and provincial abattoirs in Alberta. The cattle in the worst shape were usually destined for slaughter but some did appear at auctions.

The overall arrival condition of cattle was good but there are areas of improvement where animals in heavy lactation, emaciation, lameness, leg injuries and respiratory signs needed attention.

“We need more education to identify unfit and compromised cattle. This is not easy,” Swartzkopf-Genswein said.

Previous research has shown feeders and finished animals are almost always fit. The most vulnerable types of animals are culls and calves. They may be immune compromised or thinner.

“Whatever you put on the truck, whether it is a calf or a cull cow, it has to be in adequate condition to make the journey under the conditions of that transport,” she said.

The CFIA policy states a compromised animal has reduced capacity to withstand transport, but with special provisions it may be transported without undue suffering.

The post Livestock transport code of practice in the works appeared first on Farmtario.

“I don’t understand how anyone could do that,” is the resulting refrain.

Dr. Andria Jones-Bitton has heard that common response.

“Frankly, if you can’t understand that, it’s probably a good thing. It means you haven’t been in the depths of low, low mental health, depression and anxiety.”

Why it matters: Addressing animal abuse issues means paying attention to farmer mental health, which is often at the root of livestock abuse problems.

Jones-Bitton, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at the Ontario Veterinary College in Guelph, Ont., is studying mental health and resilience in the agriculture and veterinary sectors.

She draws a direct link between farmers’ and ranchers’ mental health and the well-being of the livestock in their care.

“If farmers are struggling with their own well-being and motivation, they’re likely going to find it difficult to invest in improving animal welfare. When we’re mentally unwell, it’s hard to care for ourselves, let alone to care for others, even when those others are really important to us.”

Jones-Bitton told those at the recent National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council Forum in Ottawa, that her national survey of farmers’ mental health showed high levels of stress and low levels of resilience to the many pressures surrounding agriculture.

Those are major problems in themselves, and farmer mental health issues have received a higher profile in recent months through initiatives such as the Do More Ag Foundation and via a House of Commons agriculture committee study.

At the welfare council forum, Jones-Bitton emphasized the link between human mental human and animal health.

She cited studies from Ireland that showed the link between animal neglect cases and the mental health, addiction and social problems of those animals’ owners. Such cases call for compassion, she said.

“Even if you didn’t care about the humans that were struggling and you only cared about the animal welfare, you’d be wise to address the issue of farmer stress.”

Yet her survey revealed farmers feel increasingly vilified by uninformed public opinion about livestock production and by campaigns organized by animal activist groups.

Quotes from some of the 1,100 farmers surveyed indicated feelings of being attacked, ignored by government and society, stress and overwork.

“What makes me the most upset is I have everything I’ve ever dreamed of — love, family and a farm, and all I feel is overwhelmed out of control and sad,” said one respondent.

One veterinarian at the forum said mental health has been a factor in every case of animal abuse with which he’s been involved. He suggested a mental health professional be part of any team that investigates cases of livestock neglect and should perhaps be the first person to make contact with the livestock owner.

Jackie Wepruk, general manager of the National Farm Animal Care Council, said the link between mental health and livestock welfare should be better articulated to animal welfare activists, who frequently claim farmers are evil and uncaring when cases arise.

Jones-Bitton said there are veterinary social work programs either in operation or being developed, and similar training programs should be developed for agricultural social work in general.

She and colleagues at Guelph have developed a pilot project and hope to launch a program this summer.

The post Animal neglect linked to mental health appeared first on Farmtario.

The company has completed more than half of its transition, according to Dr. Greg Douglas, vice-president of animal care.

Along the way the company has learned a lot about housing and managing sows in groups.

Why it matters: The hog industry had adopted new standards for animal housing that must be in place by 2024, a deadline which will come quickly for farmers.

About 40,000 of the company’s 70,000 sows are currently managed under the advanced open-housing system, and the company expects to complete the shift by 2021.

The pork industry has until July 2024 to do away with gestation crates, except for a period right after breeding. By that point, all sows and mated gilts must be housed in groups, individual pens or, if stalls are still used, given the chance for exercise. The changes came down with the release of the National Farm Animal Care Council’s Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs in 2014, which sought to phase out gestation crates.

New barns have had to meet the standard since the document’s release. The new code has mandated that any new or rebuilt facilities be fit with group housing, and that any new or replaced stalls for use right after breeding had to be big enough that the pig could stand without touching the edges and lie down without pushing into the next stall.

What Maple Leaf has learned:

• The company went back into barns when it learned more about managing sows.
• An advanced open sow housing system is now used which reduces breeding stall time from a month to seven to nine days.
• Sows move in social groups from breeding to gestation to farrowing.

Maple Leaf Foods says it has rebuilt 31 barns so far. Animals are sent to a training facility while facilities are being rebuilt to familiarize both pigs and staff to the new system and the electronic sow feeders that are now status quo for Maple Leaf Foods.

“We can monitor whether one animal picks up on the new system right away or if another animal takes a lot longer to learn the system,” Douglas said. “We will monitor that with computers, where we can tell which animals go through the system, and then if an animal needs more time or if it needs human help to show it the way, then we do that.”

Some barns have been retrofitted twice, Douglas said. A year and a half into conversions, the company opted for what it describes as an “advanced open sow housing system,” a system it says cuts down breeding stall time from over a month to seven to nine days. The company returned to refit the already converted barns.

The advanced system promotes more mobility compared to other systems where stall structure is largely intact and sows have to back out of the stall into a common area to socialize, the company says.

Under the design, Maple Leaf Foods houses 40-60 animals per enclosure. Electronic feeders sit at the periphery while the wider room is segmented into periodic alcoves with half-walls, something the company says will allow their animals to socialize in smaller groups or escape any aggressors, if needed. The company has also opted for one-way, single animal feeders to avoid a competitive feeding environment and give control over each pig’s ration.

“We’ve found that our densities are optimal for animals figuring out quickly what social structure they’re in and they access the feeders on their own and we get very little competition,” he said.

Managing competition issues

Douglas also said the company’s static group management has helped allay competition issues, something that has been among the prime concerns of farmers contemplating a switch to group housing.

“They go to farrowing together; they come out of farrowing together and they go into group housing together,” he said. “So the same 40-60 sows get to know each other and they know who goes through the feeder first, who goes through last, who likes to sleep with who, who likes to hang out with who. It’s very much relying on natural behaviour.”

Staff have also found it easier to diagnose issues in the new system, since they more freely interact with the animals under group housing, he added.

The company’s 40-60 sow groups are par for the course, according to Mark Flynn, manager of quality assurance and animal care with the Manitoba Pork Council. Flynn said other barns equipped with open housing have used similar numbers.

The post Maple Leaf Foods says group sow housing switch moving quickly appeared first on Farmtario.