Alfonso Checa (1914-1978) Renowned Luther, Baza, Spain

Animal Welfare Act (hereafter referred to as 'THE ACT').

The U.S Department of Agriculture (hereafter referred to as the USDA) requires businesses that either buy or sell warm-blooded animals, exhibit them to the public, transport them commercially, or use them in teaching or experiments, must be licensed or registered. Failure to become licensed or registered is a punishable violation of ‘THE ACT'.

People, Universities, Companies, etc., that fall under THE ACT.

1.      Animal Dealers - sell animals bred at their facility. Ex. Pet and laboratory animal breeders and brokers, auction operators, and everyone who sells exotic or wild animals, or dead animals or their parts.

a.       1970 Amendment

                                                  i.      Amended to include all warm-blooded animals used in testing, experimentation, exhibition, as pets or sold as pets.

                                                ii.      Basic treatment was expanded to include humane and reasonable handling of the animals, and required shelter from weather and temperature extremes, proper ventilation, adequate housing, decent sanitation, and adequate veterinary care at all stages in the animal's life.

2.      Exhibitor - displays animals to the public. Exhibitors include zoos, educational displays or exhibits, marine mammal shows, circuses, carnivals, and animal acts.

a.       2013 - An Act to Amend 'THE ACT' to Modify the Definition of 'Exhibitor',"

                                                  i.      Added an owner of a common, domesticated household pet who derives less than a substantial portion of income from a non-primary source for exhibiting an animal that exclusively resides at the residence of the pet owner.

3.      Transporters - move animals from one location to another.

a.      1976 Amendment

                                                  i.      Amended to further regulate animal treatment during transportation.

                                                ii.      Animals were to be kept in adequately sized traveling accommodations, and to be kept from fighting amongst one another.

4.      Research Facilities - use animals for experimentation, surgery, or testing purposes. Research facilities include state and local government-run research laboratories, universities, and colleges, diagnostic laboratories, and pharmaceutical firms.

a.       1985 Amendment

                                                  i.      Amended in the Food Security Act.

                                                ii.      it is not permitted for a single animal to be used in more than one major operative experiment, from which it was also allowed adequate time to recover as guided by a veterinarian with proper training.

                                              iii.      This amendment directed new minimum standards for the handling, housing, sanitation, feeding, and other care practices.

                                              iv.      The psychological well-being of the animals was now taken into consideration, as it never had been before. One provision that stood out at this time was the requirement for the exercise of dogs and psychological well-being of primates.

                                                v.      The law also requires research facilities to be able to describe 'painful practices' as well as implement practices that minimize pain and stress to the animals.

                                              vi.      Each research facility to establish an 'Institutional Animal Care' committee to oversee research proposals and provide oversight of animal experimentation.

5.      Research Facilities Exempt from registration:

a.       Federal facilities

b.      Elementary and secondary schools

c.       Federal facilities

d.      Agricultural research institutions

6.      1990 Amendment

a.       The 'Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act'

                                                  i.      Amended by adding 'SEC. 2503', "Protection of Pets”. This section established a holding period for cats and dogs of not less than 5 days at a holding facility of the dealer, so that the animal could be adopted or recovered by their original owner before it is sold.

                                                ii.      The provision applies to operated pounds, research facilities, or private organizations.

                                              iii.      It also requires that a written certification with the animal's background be provided to the recipient.

                                              iv.      Details should include a description of the animal, history of the animal's transfers, records, and modifications, and signatures from the dealer and recipient.

7.      Exclusions from THE ACT:

a.        Birds, rats, mice, horses, and "other farm animals" were excluded from its protection as initially legislated in 1966.

                                                  i.      2002 Amendment

1.      Title X, Subtitle D, of the 'Farm Security and Rural Investment Act'

a.       Amended 'THE ACT' of 1966 by changing the definition of 'animal'.

b.      Section 2 of 'THE ACT' was amended by changing exclusions specifically to birds, rats, and mice to use in research.

b.      Also excluded from THE ACT

                                                  i.      The following animals killed prior to usage, so long as they are killed humanely

1.      frogs used in a biology class

8.      2008 - The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act'

a.       amendments prohibited dog imports for resale unless they were at least six months of age, have all necessary vaccinations and are in good health.

In 2015, NY Times published an exposé by Michael Moss on the mistreatment of research animals at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center.

The U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (hereafter called 'The Animal Research Center') is a complex of laboratories and pastures that sprawls over 55 square miles in Clay Center, Neb. ...The Animal Research Center has one overarching mission: helping producers of beef, pork and lamb turn a higher profit.

"THE ACT — aimed to minimize suffering, yet left a gaping exemption: FARM ANIMALS used in research to benefit agriculture. ...The USDA strictly polices the treatment of animals at slaughterhouses and private laboratories. But it does not enforce its own rules requiring careful scrutiny of experiments.

The NY Times interviewed two dozen current and former Animal Research Center employees, and reviewed thousands of pages of internal records obtained under the FOIA. The Animal Research Center’s director, E. John Pollak, declined to be interviewed

Sheep occupy a particularly low rung at The Animal Research Center. ...The Animal Research Center puts sheep through its boldest, most tenacious experiments.

"Easy Care" Sheep: instead of wool, the animals grow fine hair that regularly falls out.

The mother sheep (ewes) are notorious for abandoning their newborns; The Animal Research Center began sending pregnant sheep out to open pastures in hopes of identifying those that would nurture their babies

Predictably, many ewes in the experiment ignored their lambs. And the scientists withheld help for the newborns; leaving them in the pastures until death, to test whether mothers would respond to the young ones’ growing desperation.

Cristiano Bouéres, a visiting student from Brazil; “Some days, up to 40% of the lambs were dead, some of those still alive were in bad condition, separated from the moms, and they would be dead the next morning,”

Coyotes often got to them first. The experiment’s lead scientist, Kreg A. Leymaster, beseeched The Animal Research Center’s director for help after 12 lambs were killed in 4 days.

Dr. Keen, the veterinarian who had contacted The Times, questioned the logic of expecting domestic animals to perform like wild ones.

“Because we’ve already bred all of the wild out of them,” he said. “And they’ve been trying for 10 years.”

Out in the fields, the hailstorm sent the next day’s body count soaring to 110.

The experiment has drawn interest from sheep-industry publications. But while the potential for higher profits is exciting, the concept of withholding care is bound to be unthinkable to most sheep growers.

A Cornell professor of animal science said the university panel that oversees his work would not have let him ignore vulnerable lambs. “There is no reason to allow animals to have that kind of suffering,”

Dr. Keen said, he got a call from a fellow worker asking him to help with a “downed cow.”

“There was a young cow with as many as six bulls. The bulls were being studied for their sexual libido, and normally you would do that by putting a single bull in with a cow for 15 minutes. But these bulls had been in there for hours mounting her.”

The cow’s head was locked in a cage-like device to keep her immobile, he said. “Her back legs were broken. Her body was just torn up.”

Dr. Keen wanted to euthanize the animal, but the scientist in charge could not be tracked down for permission. A few hours later, the cow died.

Dr. Keen and co-workers recounted other instances they said attested to the same problem: a recurring failure to fully consider the pain that animals suffer during experiments, or in everyday life at The Animal Research Center.

The Animal Research Center has about 30,000 animals, tended by 44 scientists, 73 technicians and other support workers. The scientists, who do not have medical degrees (and their assistants) euthanize and operate on livestock, sometimes doing two or more major surgical operations on the same animal.

Robert A. Downey, executive director of the Capital Humane Society, alerted by the staff, complained to The Animal Research Center director. “Experimental surgery is being performed in some (not all) cases by untrained, unskilled and unsupervised staff. This has resulted in the suffering of animals and in some cases the subsequent death of animals.”

John Klindt, a scientist who retired in 2008, defended his fellow researchers in an interview, saying,

"A VET HAS NO BUSINESS COMING IN AND TELLIN YOU HOW TO DO IT.

SURGERY IS AN ART YOU GET BY PRACTICING.”

The Animal Research Center does not have the veterinarians to be present during experiments, even if it wanted them to; there are no vets at The Animal Research Center.  

Dr. Laegreid, who directs the veterinary science program at the University of Wyoming, “There is always this issue,” he said. “‘You damn veterinarians think you know better.’ ”

...barns so stuffed with pigs that workers could not clean them, resulting in spates of diarrhea and respiratory disease. “This is a scheduling nightmare,” wrote Dr. Jones. “We have pigs everywhere.”

...the renowned animal welfare expert 'Temple Grandin' gave The Animal Research Center a report suggesting ways to treat cattle more humanely. Ronda Jaeger, who helped manage the cattle herd, said her supervisor had a different reaction. “He tore the papers up,” she said.

An animal manager, Devin M. Gandy, complained in 2012 that swine were kept in pens so small, 4 feet by 4 feet that they appeared to violate basic rules on animal care. He got an email reply from the experiment’s lead scientist saying the pigs had enough room, adding, “A lot of time has been wasted addressing a nonissue.”

As for Dr. Keen, his attempts to raise alarms culminated in May, when, he said, his university supervisor told him he would no longer be allowed in The Animal Research Center, citing a USDA report that Dr. Keen had accompanied a reporter inside the secure complex.

Animal Research Center officials say they did not issue such an order, and the university has declined to comment.

But the USDA gives only a broad-brush review to The Animal Research Center’s work, which is EXEMPT FROM 'THE ACT'. Details of the experiments are left for The Animal Research Center itself to evaluate.

To make sure that examination takes place, the USDA requires that The Animal Research Center appoint a review committee that holds regular meetings, keeps minutes and approves or rejects each experiment after carefully evaluating animal safety.

The Nebraska Animal Research Center, when asked for the minutes of every committee meeting in the past decade, provided just 6 sentences describing a single session last April.

The Animal Research Center said, the experiments are 'informally' discussed, and then formally approved, by scientists, the staff veterinarian, and other employees.

A NYTimes examination of 850 experimental protocols since 1985 showed that the approvals were typically made by 6 or fewer staff members: the lead researchers for the experiment.

The few questions asked dealt with scheduling and the availability of animals.

The language in 'THE ACT' protocols is revealing. While the words “profit” or “production efficiency” appear 111 times, “pain” comes up only twice.

By contrast, the University of Georgia has its researchers answer a questionnaire for each experiment that uses “pain” or “distress” 37 times.

Its 17-member review panel includes a lawyer for an animal welfare advocacy group.

The university’s director of research compliance, Christopher S. King, and a prominent animal researcher, Joseph Thulin, reviewed several of The Animal Research Center’s protocols for this article and found them lacking in critical details, like how to perform life-threatening procedures, and guidelines for when to stop an experiment if animals were suddenly in jeopardy.

“These would not pass muster at many institutions,” said Dr. Thulin, a veterinarian who directs the Biomedical Resource Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s farm-animal unit joined the 'Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International', which conducts animal-welfare inspections and audits for more than 900 schools and businesses. Because the university owns animals at The Animal Research Center, the auditors are empowered to visit there as well.

The Animal Research Center and the university quietly reached an agreement in 2013 to transfer ownership of most of the animals to The Animal Research Center ...a retired university veterinarian and scientist who sits on its animal care committee, said the change occurred because the school was seeking accreditation, which imposes stringent requirements.

“[our] control over the animals out there was not acceptable to the USDA,” Dr. White said.

When the American Meat Science Association met in 2013, a scientist from the Nebraska Animal Research Center gave a presentation comparing the two chief methods for killing pigs — one with anesthesia and one without. His goal was to identify which produced the more tender meat?

The next day, speaker after speaker urged a different yardstick for raising and killing animals:

Which methods caused the least suffering?

The annual conference, financed by Oscar Mayer, had turned over half of its schedule to the biggest new challenge facing the meat industry: the growing consumer demand for humanely raised products.

Tyson Foods suppliers must now use pain medicine when they castrate or remove the tails of pigs, and to stop putting pigs in pens so small they cannot move.

Whole Foods are refusing to buy fresh meat from sources that do not meet their standards for animal welfare.

Universities that conduct experiments for the meat industry are also asking whether their research has overstressed animals. “We know we need these animals to be productive, but we also need to know if we’ve pushed them too far,” said Janice Swanson, chair-woman of the behavior and welfare unit of the 'Department of Animal Science' at Michigan State University.

...at the Nebraska Animal Research Center, the staff veterinarian circulated a news report about Tyson’s demands on its suppliers.

When the USDA issued stricter rules last year on animal handling in meat-processing plants (The Animal Research Center runs a small one), one scientist asked about The Animal Research Center’s practices.

“I don’t know to what extent we are emphasizing training for humane animal handling,” he wrote to the director.

Animal Research Center officials say animals’ well-being is served by much of their research, including efforts to fight a type of pneumonia endemic to sheep, and to help ranchers reduce heat stress in cows. “Production research and animal welfare research do not have to be mutually exclusive,” they wrote.

Sometimes, though, the two seem at odds.

The new attention to animal welfare has struck one Animal Research Center worker as an opportunity, records show. In 2017, Katherine Whitman, a University of Nebraska veterinarian who works at The Animal Research Center, proposed an experiment to find more effective pain medicine for two common procedures on sheep: tail removal and castration.

Her budget was a modest $3,524, mostly for tests to measure stress and pain. And the goals she pitched were practical: Not only would the animals benefit, she wrote, but the findings could also help the meat producers show they cared about pain management, which “will likely be a demand placed on the industry by consumers in the near future.”

Her proposal was turned down by Mr. Leymaster, The Animal Research Center’s sheep expert.

“Sheep research, he responded in an email, had only two objectives: fighting pneumonia, and enhancing “the competitiveness, profitability, and sustainability of lamb production with reduced labor inputs.” That is, the experiment to breed “easy care” sheep.

Another reason for the denial: The Animal Research Center said it lacked the expertise to assess the pain felt by animals.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rebuttle from long-time Cowboy:

This week the New York Times carried an article, entitled “U.S. Research Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit,” that took the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) http://beefmagazine.com/cattle-genetics/us-marc-releases-across-breed-epd-figures

At Clay Center, Neb., to task for its treatment of animals.

I’m a political junkie, so I’m no stranger to one-sided arguments. The article on the Animal Research Center, however, wasn’t presented as an editorial or identified as having a political slant; it was presented as “unbiased” reporting.

However, the article was so fundamentally flawed that anyone with knowledge of the Animal Research Center and the people who work there realized it was so biased and agenda-driven as to be nonsensical.

The reality is that, as presented, outrage is the proper emotion to expect from those whose only exposure to the Animal Research Center is what was presented in the article. I don’t know if the author and editorial team are just uninformed or are agenda-driven http://beefmagazine.com/blog/agriculture-can-t-allow-outsiders-define-sustainability,

 But the immorality and injustice of the article is nonetheless the same.

The article included the same mantras and rhetoric of the anti-livestock industry folks, http://beefmagazine.com/blog/should-ag-make-such-fuss-about-negative-media-attention

 Including the same old anti-capitalistic, anti-large business themes. After reading the anti-meat propaganda, environmental propaganda, and appreciating the nexus that now exists between these organizations in their messaging, I would guess that this article was shaped and formed by those who hold that perspective.

Sadly, the production of this article also had to have substantial inside information. An individual could not distort the data to the level of distortions that were made without intimate knowledge. Certainly, the industry never will condone any mistreatment of animals, but reading this article made it painfully obvious to me that, when taken out of context, selective descriptions manipulated properly can become very effective ammunition against our industry.

Animal welfare http://beefmagazine.com/blog/okay-i-ll-say-it-beef-industry-has-animal-welfare-problem

is the most effective way to attack our industry. One of the greatest challenges we face as an industry is to more effectively describe who we are and what we do. I’m convinced it’s a story that accurately and properly will elicit support. However, at this time, that story is neither well understood nor the story that most people are hearing.

Will the New York Times move the needle in a major way? Probably not, but it’s another nick added to all the others. If the beef and livestock industries are going to more effectively combat such attacks, we have to understand and really appreciate the role of politics, media and science in this battle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~