Animal husbandry and care

bruceki · #1 04/06/12, 01:58 AM

I was reading another blog, and the author was promoting the idea of having animals live a "natural" life -- which to that author means to allow the animal to die if it gets sick. They went on at length about this, and said that they'd lost more than a thousand chickens and turkeys while they came up with a flock that doesn't have any disease.

It's a theory. If an animal gets sick, just kill it or watch it die. No treatment.

Is that a choice that you would make? Would you feel comfortable with a farm that did that? Buy their products, for instance?

Would your opinion change if you could vaccinate the flock and not have any incidence of that disease?

Would it change if it was something other than poultry? Sheep, goats, pigs, cows?

The author claims to be open to different opinions; says that, but never actually allows them. Since there's no discussion there, I'm interested in hearing your opinion here.

Bruce / meat

chamoisee · #2 04/06/12, 02:18 AM

Depends on why the animal is sick. If it's sick due to bad management, the strongest animals there are will die if they aren't taken care of correctly. Goats don't do well in mud or soggy pastures, hogs don't do well without shelter in areas with cold winters.

On the other hand, one does need to cull, and to cull hard, for animals that are not genetically sound. They key is being able to distinguish between problems that are related to management, and those which are genetic.

For example, I've known people who feed their dairy goats ground barley free choice all winter long....and then, if the doe has kidding issues (because she is fat and the kids are a lot bigger than they should be), they don't help her out. They want goats that don't have birthing issues. The problem here is that by overfeeding, they created the birthing problems, and also the goats who never came into heat at all because they were fat. Pygmy goats, on the other hand, are sort of like bulldogs. Their rate of C-sections is incredibly high. Culling needs to be going on there.

chamoisee · #3 04/06/12, 02:19 AM

BTW, I don't want to go to the link. I got a virus from here once before. Please copy/paste relevant portions?

bruceki · #4 04/06/12, 02:49 AM

I have not posted a link to the blog that I'm talking about, intentionally. I'd like to hear opinions on the philosophy that the blog talks about.

If you're interested i'll send you the link to the entry in question via private mail.

The link to "meat" is to my blog. No virus risk that I know of, but caution is always good.

Bearfootfarm · #5 04/06/12, 02:52 AM

I think some go to extremes in trying to save every animal, when it would be better to cull them.

There are a lot of variables involved depending on the problems, and your goals in rainsing the animals to begin with.

If you have chronic problems with an animal, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep treating it endlessly, rather than just getting rid of it.

bruceki · #6 04/06/12, 03:04 AM

Bearfoot & Chamoisee: Would a vaccination be out of line? In one case they lost hundreds of chickens to a disease that they could have vaccinated against. In another case they lost a bunch of sheep because they didn't control the parasites; worms, I believe, which they could have done by simply worming the animals.

lexa · #7 04/06/12, 04:36 AM

It is a very tough question.
Utility of the animals with strong genetics vs moral.
If they have a well thought out program to raise animals that are disease resistant and keep loosing animals that are not resistant and breeding those who survive and produce resistant offspring, maybe I would buy from them. For that I would actually like to see that animals that they keep, are otherwise well taken care for. For example if they practice multi species rotational graising that should break parasite live cycles and still loose animals, I am ok. I personally would not let untrifty animal die, I would treat and cull it out of my herd.
On other hand if they just stick them out in the barnyard where their chances of picking up worms, is super high and farmer does not worm them and just lets them die, I would say it is neglect.

I really would like to see the original post where its authors discuss their phylosophy to make up my mind. can you Pm the link to me?

**Ross** · #8 04/06/12, 05:32 AM

Its not a management practice to let animals die. To cull treated animals and breed for disease resistance as a trait thats measured or indexed in some manner is good manegment. Its how organic farms have to operate.

haypoint · #9 04/06/12, 05:46 AM

You cannot "create" a strain of animals that are immune to disease. In the millions of years that animals, and that includes us, natural selection hasn't produced any proof to the "let them die, they'll be stronger" theroy.

All he has proven is thatt left untreated, animals die and sometimes animals don't get diseases.

The World Flu that killed millions of people in the early 1900s, killed the healthiest people. It caused the body's immune system to work against itself. The better your immune system, the quicker it killed you.

If I had a thousand chickens and a couple weren't getting around very good, I'd kill them. I know from experience that in every batch, there are a few that are weaker and no matter what extra care they get, they eventually die. I no longer operate a 24/7 hospital for droopy 3 day old chicks. But to allow a flock to die of a known disease sets animal husbandry back 3000 years.

unregistered168043 · #10 04/06/12, 05:50 AM

By using vaccinations and providing extraordinary medical care, you allow those who are susceptible to common ailments to live, and pass on their weak genes. By allowing them to die, you are left with a gene pool that is resistant or immune to those ailments. Thats the reason we have 'superbugs', the latest pesticides/antibiotics wipe out a large percentage of pests/bacteria for several years, the remaining population is resistant or immune. They repopulate and you end up with a population of resistant bugs.

As the others said it really depends on what you are trying to accomplish and what is causing the animals to die.

Haven · #11 04/06/12, 07:25 AM

It depends on how the animals are kept. If they are allowed to spread out on tons of land where they are kept in more a natural setting, fine. Not pooping where they always eat, fresh air and ventilation. A diverse diet of fresh foods.

If animals are being kept feedlot style or with too many on too little space, on a purely man made diet, natural rearing and culling is a bad idea. All you are doing is creating a hotbed of disease, then expecting the animals continually fight it off.

Survival of the fittest does not happen in a small pen or fence with overused soil. Survival of the pathogens and parasites does happen there, unless a human steps in with "un natural" disease and sanitation measures.

SFM in KY · #12 04/06/12, 08:09 AM

This is the kind of mindset you tend to see in people who are usually *new* to the livestock scene and are not trying to actually support a working farm.

As a third-generation livestock breeder, I can tell you it isn't a viable option to not provide what is considered basic health care to livestock ... worming, vaccinations, basic health care. I will agree that extraordinary care, whether by the owner or by a vet, is not particularly practical for the 'commercial' producer. I grew up very aware of the 'facts of life' as far as ranching as a business. You take a cow or horse to the vet if the cost of what they do to save the animal's life will not cost more than buying a healthy replacement ... and if saving the animal's life will return that animal to a productive life. You simply do not spend $2000 to save a badly cut ranch horse that will never be working sound again. You put the horse down and use $1500 of that $2000 to buy a sound horse.

Certainly you can cull for good immune systems, high production rates, fertility and things like that. But you are setting yourself up for failure if you are not worming when you need to and vaccinating for the diseases you can prevent by vaccinations as well as providing adequate feed, water and shelter.

To me, vaccinating, worming and providing basic maintenance and health care for the minor illnesses is good management and not providing those things is edging very close to animal abuse.

olivehill · #13 04/06/12, 08:40 AM

If your retelling is accurate what he probably, actually, has now is a flock of chronic carriers.

I don't mollycoddle the stock, but if you've got any kind of animal dying en masse you need to be doing something. Makes no sense from either a business or animal welfare standpoint to just let them suffer to death. If you want to choose not to vaccinate or use synthetic wormers or whatever, fine. But in the absence of those things you have to implement other management protocols in their place.

mary,tx · #14 04/06/12, 08:48 AM

IMO if more than one animal has an issue, you probably have a management issue. You're doing something wrong that you need to change.

I don't think I've ever treated a sick chicken. Once in a (long) while a chicken will die. But if you are losing a bunch of chickens, something is wrong that needs changing.

I'd treat other animals more aggressively than a sick chicken.

xCSx · #15 04/06/12, 08:51 AM

It depends if you treat them simply as livestock or more as your pets... especially if you have a no kill farm

Bearfootfarm · #16 04/06/12, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruceki

Bearfoot & Chamoisee: Would a vaccination be out of line? In one case they lost hundreds of chickens to a disease that they could have vaccinated against. In another case they lost a bunch of sheep because they didn't control the parasites; worms, I believe, which they could have done by simply worming the animals.

I do vaccinations and worming, but I don't have hundreds of animals.

It really sounds like they have more than they can handle and are trying to justify the lack of care

Tracy Rimmer · #17 04/06/12, 09:25 AM

My animals are put into my care, and I have a responsibility to see to it that they do not suffer, and receive medical care if they require it.

I am all for as little meds as possible, we don't give antibiotics, etc., unless there is a need, but seriously, no medical care if an animal is sick, allow them to suffer through illness that could be fixed with simple treatment? IMHO, that's nothing more than abuse, and a poor decision for the health of my farm, both literally, and financially.

haypoint · #18 04/06/12, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary,tx

IMO if more than one animal has an issue, you probably have a management issue. You're doing something wrong that you need to change.

I don't think I've ever treated a sick chicken. Once in a (long) while a chicken will die. But if you are losing a bunch of chickens, something is wrong that needs changing.

I'd treat other animals more aggressively than a sick chicken.

If you have more than one sick animal, you likely have a contagous issue, not a management issue.

Sonshine · #19 04/06/12, 09:33 AM

This topic is interesting to me. I know this isn't S & P, but in the case of a total melt down and people aren't able to get the meds we usually have on hand to treat our animals, how does everyone plan on keeping their stock healthy?

haypoint · #20 04/06/12, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haven

It depends on how the animals are kept. If they are allowed to spread out on tons of land where they are kept in more a natural setting, fine. Not pooping where they always eat, fresh air and ventilation. A diverse diet of fresh foods.

If animals are being kept feedlot style or with too many on too little space, on a purely man made diet, natural rearing and culling is a bad idea. All you are doing is creating a hotbed of disease, then expecting the animals continually fight it off.

Survival of the fittest does not happen in a small pen or fence with overused soil. Survival of the pathogens and parasites does happen there, unless a human steps in with "un natural" disease and sanitation measures.

I like most of what you had to say. However, I'll take exception to your implication that wide open spaces is going to equal healthy livestock. There are plenty of diseases in the environment. Birds and other wildlife carry diseases that can be spread to livestock and poultry. Survival of pathogens and parasites happen in the open areas, too.

Man made diet is hay and corn for cattle and corn and soybeans for poultry and not proven to be harmful to them. In fact they thrive on it.

I hate to see all those chickens crammed into cages and in buildings housing hundreds of thousands. But those places are not the hotbed of disease as we'd imagine. In fact, as much as I'd like to deny it, those birds have a lower rate of disease than the average back yard flock. I'll also add that laying hens are not fed antibiotics. It is against the law. I checcked.