I. Human Interaction With Wildlife

Section to be added

In the Anthropocene, most vertebrate animals live in captivity as livestock or companion animals (Bovenkirk). North America is the world’s leading country in pet-keeping, having over 300 million pets, which is four times the number of children. Approximately 58 % of Canadian households own at least one cat or dog, and in 2020 the dog population was estimated at 7.7 million while the cat population was estimated at 8.1 million. (CAHI). In many households dogs and cats are considered important companions for family members and indeed may be referred to as “a member of the family”(Silcox; AVMA 2012). Other animals can be beloved pets and have similar importance in the lives of humans; however, most of the literature focuses on the most common pets which are cats and dogs.

There are numerous positive health effects reported for pet owners. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of pets promoting social capital in our lives improving our quality of life and mental health (from CAHI)., Wood:Social capital and pet ownership? ).

Healthy pets may lead to healthy humans in other ways as well. In terms of physical activity, adults with dogs take 25% more steps per day than adults without dogs, and children with dogs are significantly more active than children without them (Owen et al. 2010). There is evidence that dog and cat owners were less likely to be obese and more likely to report excellent health (Utz 2014), and dog owners got more exercise, were fitter, and were seen less often by doctors than non-owners (Heady, Na, & Zheng, 2008).

Cardiovascular benefits have been reported for pet owners (Beck and Katcher). In a benchmark study in the 80s pet owners discharged from a coronary care unit had better outcomes compared to nonowners and this was attributed to the social support provided by pets (Freidman, E 1980). Subsequently, other similar studies reported that a prospective study found that dog ownership was associated with an increased likelihood of 1-year survival after a myocardial infarction, and dog ownership could be considered an independent predictor of survival (Friedmann &Thomas, 1995). Further evidence has shown that that pet owners had slightly lower systolic blood pressures, plasma cholesterol, and triglyceride values than non–pet owners  (Anderson, Reid, and Jennings (1992).

Health research into chronic pain suggests that dogs may indirectly improve their owners’ ability to cope with, manage, and live with chronic pain by providing emotional, social, and mental health benefits. (Carr).  However, the benefits may only occur specifically with people who actively use human–animal interactions as a pain-coping mechanism, and care should be taken before recommending companion-animal ownership to all persons suffering from chronic pain (Bradley & Bennet)

Aside from COVID 19 isolation promoting the ownership of pets, previous reports showed that companion animals provided psychological benefits to pet owners with particular benefits to those in one-person households (Antonacopoulos & Pychyl 2010). Female university students were less likely to report being lonely and depressed as a benefit of animals in their room. Psychological effects of pets include a feeling of being needed, and a feeling of well being which were in part a result of increased social interactions between people with dogs such as meeting at a dog park and positive social effects from positive comments and attention by people who are drawn to pets in the community (Wells, 2009).

Other impacts that pets have on wellbeing of humans include alleviation of highly stressful life occurrences such as divorce and death in the family, alleviation of depression and anxiety, and these effects were shown to extend to all members in the household (Lewis, Krägeloh, & Shepherd, 2009). Other studies have shown positive effects of pets on childhood development and healthy aging ((Beck & Katcher). (See SIlcox and add silcox as ref in above statements)

These studies show evidence of the positive impact that pets have on wellbeing. In fact, in several countries pet ownership has been shown to result in savings to the national health program. (in Fine: Understanding Our Kinship with Animals: Input for Health Care Professionals Interested in the Human–Animal Bond Aubrey H.Fine₁Alan M.Beck?)

Domestic animals also provide benefits to human health when trained as service and therapy animals. Service animals are trained to provide specific medical care or support to a person with physical, mental or emotional disabilities and reside with that person, while Therapy animals work with more than one person and reside with a handler or at the facility where they work. The best known example of assistance animals is the Guide dog which is highly trained to guide humans with impaired vision. The success of Guide dogs as “adaptive technology” led to the training of dogs to provide other services including hearing, mobility, medical alert needs and many others; and the success with dogs led to training of other species as service animals such as guide ponies and service monkeys (Beckoff encyclopedia).

Therapy animals are not service animals. In animal assisted therapy a person trained in that therapy incorporates an animal into a prescribed therapeutic plan (Beckofff bk 1).  Well known examples of therapy animals include horses used in therapeutic riding programs or equine facilitated psychotherapy and dogs providing affection and comfort to people in hospitals, retirement homes, nursing homes, schools, hospices, disaster areas, and to people with learning difficulties.

Although there are amazing stories of the benefits from the human animal bond and from loyal service and therapy animals, it is important to be aware that the human animal bond (HAB) and its relationship with human mental health is complex (Hill), and the HAB may interfere with self care and contribute to noncompliance of health/medical recommendations. For instance, if there is a contradiction between pet care and self care the owner may choose to put the animal’s needs first resulting in noncompliance toward their own therapy. One example is a patient being referred to a rehabilitation facility that does not allow animals. This may not be a viable option to that owner due to lack of pet care and may lead to non compliance by the patient. This could have a critical effect on patient outcome (McNicholas; silcox?). There is also evidence that pets can have no effect or be associated with decreased health and morale in some human animal interactions (Scoresby, K.J, 2021; (Beck and Katcher). Therefore, it is essential to investigate the human animal interactions in the daily life of each patient. This will help the physician make recommendations for the patient which work for the entire family including the pet members.

It is also important to recognize that companion animals interacting and living with humans need to be healthy to provide health benefits. The appropriate veterinary care is important to promote a strong human animal bond. The HAB is defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association as “a mutually beneficial and dynamic relationship between people and animals that is influenced by behaviors essential to the health and wellbeing of both” (AVMA). Unhealthy pets con be a source of zoonotic diseases (Tarazona et al) transmitting infectious diseases to humans when they are not healthy themselves. More on health disadvantages… burden of care??

Moreover, it is also important to acknowledge that pets contribute to poor planetary health. The pet animal population accounts for 25 to 30 per cent of the environmental impact of meat consumption in the United States and are responsible for creating approximately 64 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. They also produce millions of tonnes of feces every year, much of it individually wrapped before being sent to landfills. Whereas feces left in the environment contaminate waterways with bacteria, viruses and parasites. (Suzuki report; Voith)

Cats can have an additional negative effect on the planetary health due to their agency as predators. Many owned cats are allowed to be free ranging, and there are many free ranging feral cats in most communities.  Free-ranging domestic cats impact biodiversity through predation, fear effects, competition, disease and hybridization. Prey items include a wide range of animals, including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates like butterflies and dragonflies. (Trowburst) Another indirect impact on the planet is competition with wild animals for food. For example, every mouse eaten by a cat cannot be eaten by a hawk. Domestic cats can also impact wildlife through cat-transmitted diseases like toxoplasmosis, rabies or feline leukemia (Voith).

Overall, there is much evidence of mental and physical health benefits from humans interacting with domestic animals; however, this is unique to each individual, including patients, and their circumstances. Questions about pets and interactions with animals should be a routine part of history taking for the medical record. (see See Silcox- recommendations for clinicians. supplemental) This information may be pertinent for both mental and physical health aspects of patients.  Conscientious and responsible pet ownership should be promoted to optimize health benefits from pets and to protect the planet. Patient-Centered Medical Homes should consider including a veterinarian as one of the health professionals on the team.

 

---

 

“The History of Human-Animal Interaction .” Animal Rights. Retrieved April 25, 2022 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/history-human-animal-interaction

 

Bekoff, M. (2007) Anthrozoology. Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relationships. A global exploration of our connections with animals.  (From introduction: anthrozoology see text in office pp) Greenwood press. Westport Conn 2007.

 

Urbanik, Julie. (2012) Geography and human animal relations.  Placing Animals : An Introduction to the Geography of Human-Animal Relations, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/upei/detail.action?docID=988804.

 

Keulartz, J., Bovenkerk, B. (2021). Animals in Our Midst: An Introduction. In: Bovenkerk, B., Keulartz, J. (eds) Animals in Our Midst: The Challenges of Co-existing with Animals in the Anthropocene. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 33. Springer, Cham. https://doi-org.proxy.library.upei.ca/10.1007/978-3-030-63523-7_1

 

Fine, A. H., Beck A. M., (2019) Understanding Our Kinship With Animals: Input for Health Care Professionals Interested in the Human–Animal Bond. Handbook on animal assisted therapy. Academic Press. 3-12

 DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815395-6.00001-8

 

The Canadian Animal Health Institute (CAHI) 2020 Pet Population Survey

February 15, 2021

 

Suzuki: (https://davidsuzuki.org/living-green/is-your-pet-care-planet-friendly/#:~:text=The%20scoop%20on%20poop,steps%20or%20rolls%20over%20it.)

 

Carr, E. C. J., Norris, J.M., Hayden K. A., Pater, R., Wallace, J. E., (2020) A Scoping Review of the Health and Social Benefits of Dog Ownership for People Who Have Chronic

Pain , Anthrozoos, 33:2, 207-224, DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2020.1719761

 

Tarazona  et al: Ariel, M., Tarazona ,*, Maria C Ceballos 2,3 and Donald M Broom Human Relationships with Domestic and Other

Animals: One Health, OneWelfare, One Biology Animals 2020, 10, 43; doi:10.3390/ani10010043

Use the zoonosis table only

 

Trouwborst, A., (2020) Domestic cats and their impacts on biodiversity: A blind spot in

the application of nature conservation law

People and Nature. 2:235–250.   DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10073

Silcox, D., Castillo, Y. A., Reed, B. J., (2014) The Human Animal Bond: Applications for Rehabilitation Professionals. 45, 27-37.

Wood, L., Martina, K., Christiana, H., Houghton, S., Kawachi, I., Vallesi, S., McCune, S., (2017) Social capital and pet ownership – A tale of four cities. SSM Population Health. 3, 442-447.

Antonacopoulos, N., & Pychyl, T. A., (2010). An examination of the potential role of pet ownership, human social support and pet attachment in the psychological health of individuals living alone. Anthrozoös, 23(1), 37-54. doi: 10.2752/175303710X12627079939143

?Friedmann, E., Thomas, S. A., Son, H., Chapa, D., & McCune, S. (2013). Pet’s presence and owner’s  blood pressures during the daily lives of pet owners with pre- to mild hypertension. Anthrozoös, 26(4), 535-550. doi:10.2752/175303713X13795775536138

Heady, B., Na, F., & Zheng, R. (2008). Pet dogs benefit owners’ health: A “natural” experiment in China. Social Indicators Research, 87(3), 481-493. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9142-2

Lewis, A., Krägeloh, C. U., & Shepherd, D. (2009). Pet ownership, attachment, and health-related quality of life in New Zealand. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(1), 96-101.

McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., & Martin, C. E. (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1239-1252. doi:10.1037/a0024506

Owen, C. G., Nightingale, C. M., Rudnicka, A., Ekelund, U., McMinn, A, van Sluijs, E, et al. (2010). Family dog ownership and levels of physical activity in childhood: Findings from the Child Heart and Health Study in England. American Journal of Public Health, 100(9), 1669-1671. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.188193

Patronek, G.J., & Glickman, L. T. (1993). Pet ownership protects against the risks and consequences of coronary heart disease. Medical Hypotheses, 40(4), 245-249. doi:10.1016/0306-9877(93)90049-V

Utz, R. (2014). Walking the dog: The effect of pet ownership on human health and health  behaviors. Social Indicators Research, 116(2), 327-339. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0299-6]

Friedmann, E., Katcher, A. H., (1980). Animal Companions and One-Year Survival

of Patients After Discharge From a Coronary Care Unit. Public Health Reports. 95, 307.

Hill, L., Winefield, H., Bennett, P., (2020) Are stronger bonds better?

Examining the relationship between the human–animal bond and human social support, and its

impact on resilience, Australian Psychologist. 55, 729-738, DOI: 10.1111/ap.12466

Scoresby, K.J., Strand, E.B., Ng, Z., Brown, K.C., Stilz, C.R., Strobel, K., Barroso, C.S., Souza, M. (2021) Pet Ownership and Quality of Life: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Vet. Sci. 8, 332. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/vetsci8120332

Bradley, L., Bennett, P., C., (2015) Companion-Animals’ Effectiveness in Managing Chronic Pain in Adult Community Members Anthozoos. 28

Beck, A. M., Katcher, A. H., (2003) Future Directions in Human-Animal Bond Research. American Behavioral Scientist. 47, 79-93. DOI: 10.1177/0002764203255214

American Veterinary Medical Association Human-animal bond | (avma.org)

Wells, D. L., (2009) The Effects of Animals on Human Health and Well-Being. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 523—543.

McNicholas, J., Gilbey, A., Rennie, A., Ahmedzai, S., Dono, J., Ormerod, E., (2005) Pet ownership and human health: a brief review of evidence and issues. BMJ 331:1252–5

Exploring the differences between pet and non-pet owners: Implications for humananimal interaction research and policy Jessica Saunders1 , Layla Parast1 *, Susan H. Babey2 , Jeremy V. Miles

Saunders, J., Parast, L., Babey, S.H., Miles, J.V., (2017) Exploring the differences between pet and non-pet owners: Implications for human-animal interaction research and policy. PLoS ONE 12:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0179494

Brooks, H. L., Rushton, K., Lovell, K., Bee, P., Walker, L., Grant, L., Rogers, A., (2018) The power of support from companion animals for people living with mental health problems: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry. 18:31 DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1613-2

Voith, V., L., (2009) The Impact of Companion Animal Problems on Society and the Role of Veterinarians. Vet Clin Small Anim. 39: 327–345 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2008.10.014

---

History of Animal Agriculture

 

Life on the surface of the earth depends on energy from the sun. The first life forms, once established, began to grow exponentially and so inevitably overshadowed each other in the quest for light.  Thus began a fight for sunlight and survival.  Competition for resources remains a common theme that drives all animal life and human civilization to this day.

 

The initial competition for sunlight caused early life forms to form solid structures like cellulose and lignin so that they can  grow up over each other to reach sunlight sun.  New innovative life forms began consuming plant material instead depending on photosynthesis.  To optimally access many plants, these herbivores needed to be mobile, and so animals evolved to move to their food source.  The variety of herbivores that swim, fly and walk today are a consequence of the intense competition for food.   Other animals rather than continually searching for leaves just found it easier to eat the herbivores.  Carnivores are part an ecological balance where the sun’s energy is captured and shared in a food chain where every life form is looking to survive and reproduce.   Homo Sapiens arose in this distributive energy ecosystem

 

Humans have become the most widespread competitor for resources and have settled almost everywhere in the world from the arctic where no plants grow, to tropical jungles to deserts.  The advantage that humans have over other species is the ability to communicate and work together.   The evolution of language, initially spoken, then pictorial, and now written, requires a large brain and a more intensive nutritional demand. Humans evolved to survive on a variety of foods and ecosystems.  We can exist on an all-animal diet[1] or primarily on plants when living in lush vegetation. We evolved an ability to run distances and outlast prey and a metabolism to endure periods of hunger when prey wasn’t found.

 

As humans started to work together, we taught each other how to hunt animals much more efficiently.  Examples still exist of these early hunting techniques [figure 1], and we became the most effective carnivore on earth.   As our population grew humans fought over optimal land and learned to trade resources, all activities in which we still engage.

 

When prey was scarce, early hunter gather societies found a way to corral and confine animals [figure 2], and so livestock farming began.  All our livestock species had their origin in wildlife.   Canadian cattle began as wild European aurochs[2] (Bos primigenius) pigs as wild eurasian pigs[3] (Sus Scrofa), and chickens as wild birds traded from Asia[4].  Through natural selection we have domesticated these species to improve their temperament – so they are less likely to kill us – and to better meet our nutritional needs.   Historically we have increased their fat content [Figure 3] to be a better source of energy and enlarged their muscles for a source of protein.  This continual refinement of our livestock’s genetic base continues to this day[5].

 

We found nutrition could come from animals without having to killing them   Milk designed to grow offspring is nutritionally dense, and even if we were lactose intolerant, the benefits outweighed the discomfort.[6]  Similarly eggs became a favoured nutritionally dense food giving a survival advantage to societies that found ways to domesticate poultry and keep them laying.

 

Humans also found a myriad of ways to preserve animal-based foods to carry over times of famine.  Early nomads carried meat under the saddle of their horses where both drying and the salt from the sweating horse would preserve the meat[7].   Heavy salt can prevent bacterial growth and with natural fermentation we can create the dry cured meat products that we still eat today[8].  Pickling in low pH, fermenting, smoking, cooking, drying and freezing techniques were discovered to preserve animal based foods for consumption later.    These techniques form the basis of our culinary and charcuterie skills we take pride in.

 

The value of animal-based foods goes is deeper than the nutrition it provides.   Humans still enjoy hunting and fishing, and we pay particular attention to food preparation to impress others.   Bonding around food experiences whether it’s the raising, obtaining or preparation of foods is an emotionally satisfying activity that creates friendships and harmony.  A lack of food and inequitable distribution leads to strife.

 

Economics

 

The production of food from animals is not separated from the human’s competition for resources and survival.  Animals, once slaughtered, are sold as meat products, and once packaged, meat is generally considered a commodity.   Just like coal, metals, and wood products, meat is traded on an open market   Butchers buy animals to process and farmers compete to supply them.    The producer with the lowest cost is the most profitable.  It is difficult for butchers to raise prices of their meat if another can supply it for a lower price. Humans retain a universal and fundamental motivation to never pay more than we need to.

 

This market approach forms the basis of modern agriculture and farmers struggling to survive are continually looking for efficiency and cost savings.   The net effect to society is an ever-present supply of food ingredients at the lowest cost possible. This food production system has made our human population to grow exponentially and reduce starvation episodes.  Our civilization less has food production crises[9], but we do retain a distribution problem.

 

The most expensive cost of raising a farm animal is feed.  In pig and poultry production 70-80% of the production cost is feed[10] and the conversion of feed to meat is the metric most closely monitored by livestock producers. Chasing a better feed conversion ratio is the greatest driver of the change we see in modern livestock today.   Fat is more energy dense than muscle and and so fatter animals needs more feed.   In the pursuit of feed efficiency, we are selecting our farm animal to be leaner.   If at the same time an animal grows faster, the producer can sell more animals annually and animals reaching market age sooner use less feed for maintenance (metabolism and mobility) and again require less feed.    Consequently, modern agriculture has been selecting faster growing and leaner animals[11].

 

Starting from a traditional multi species mixed farm, producers found it more efficient to specialize and become exceptionally good at raising their preferred species.  Most commercial farms today focus one livestock species and can negotiate supplies at better prices and gain economy of scale through increasing farm size.  The competition for farm survival resulted in fewer, larger increasingly specialized farms which raise livestock indoors[12].

 

Farm animals are brought under a roof for several reasons starting with shelter from cold.  Cold animals will eat more feed to stay warm and raising them in their thermoneutral zone minimizes feed cost.   Animals indoors are at less risk of predation and disease coming from wildlife.  Some zoonotic diseases such a trichinosis can be controlled when animals are indoors as are diseases such as influenza, leptospirosis and tuberculosis which can spread from wildlife.

 

Disease

Further feed efficiency can be found in eliminating endemic diseases.  Most pig and poultry production use principles of Specific Pathogen Free (SPF) production where pathogens are eliminated where possible.  Starting with the breeding stock down to commercial farms if pathogens are removed, disease loss can be eliminated.  Some diseases resist elimination and so vaccination and parasite control is another foundational strategy on most farms.    Some countries have eliminated severe animal diseases such as Foot and Mouth Disease which can affect many livestock species, however in some regions it remains endemic[13].   Animal diseases are still spreading internationally, particularly African Swine Fever, which  survives months in meat products and has spread worldwide save the continental Americas and Oceania. This disparity of health status results in severe restrictions on trading of animals or meats between regions.  Our cultural differences and emotional attachments to food products drives people to smuggle meats over borders[14] and requires intensive border protection and inspection.

 

Early in the intensification of animal production the use of antibiotics was found to be particularly valuable because controlling subclinical disease and changing on enteric flora improved growth rate and feed efficiency[15].    Other pharmaceuticals were found that could increase growth rates and muscling to bring economic advantages.   Anabolics such as zeranol[16] and Beta agonists such as Ractopamine[17] have been approved for food animal use in North America. For consumers looking for the lowest price for meat, antimicrobial drugs and pharmaceuticals are powerful economic tools.

 

Globalization

The same economy of scale that producers used to reduce their cost applies to slaughter and meat processing companies as well.  Larger processors in animal dense areas have significant cost advantages, and with refrigeration can transport meat in large volumes to consumers in large cities and countries with high populations.   This evolution coinciding with industrialization profoundly shaped North American society and is well described[18].  Large processing plants can invest in technology that can utilize every part of the animal and package it for sale anywhere in the world that will give the best price.  The modern pig in Canada is sold in worldwide and is processed into a myriad of cuts[19].  [figure 4 – cut chart] Again, competition for profitability has led to small number of high volume processing plants.  The intense competition survival by producers and processors to stay in business gives Homo sapiens globally a lower real cost of food.

 

There are disadvantages of open market economics for food production, and other systems have been tried.   In centrally planned economies where technocrats set price and production targets, political influence controlled access to food.  The resulting corruption and inefficiency eventually returned market economics. Governments worldwide do try to soften the rough edges of market economics. In Canada we have a supply managed system production for poultry and dairy foods which supports local producers, but they require border restrictions to keep cheaper imports out.

 

 

Challenges of Animal Agriculture

 

Despite the abundance our food production system, there are always drawbacks and opportunities to improve food production .

 

Nutrition and Health

 

Animal based protein may that they negatively impact our health.   When we were cold, starving, and depended on manual labour, animal proteins and particularly fats were highly valued because of their nutrient density.  As we mechanized, both obesity and heart disease became a concern. Low fat and increased polyunsaturated intake nutritional recommendations urged people away animal based foods.   Animal agriculture responded by reducing the fat content of livestock-based foods.  Leaner cuts of meat were marketed, which coincided well with the search for feed efficiency.   A consequence of leaner cuts with less fat is reduced tenderness and flavour. We can now find moisture enhanced meat cuts in the super market[20],[21], along recommendations not overcook meats as attempt to improve the eating experience. Niche marketing of  flavourful  “heritage breeds” such as Berkshire hogs or Wagu raised cattle which carry more intra muscular fat are marketed for their superior taste.

 

As our understanding of heart disease has become more sophisticated, role of animal-based fats is not as clear and some authors tout the benefits of animal fats and recommend the nutrient density of animals based foods.[22]

 

There are more recent concerns around the carcinogenicity of meats, particularly processed meat products preserved with nitrites and other compounds   Preserving meats with wood smoke reduces bacterial growth, but smoke (like campfires and wood stoves) has creosotes and nitrites convert to nitrosamines during the cooking process[23].

 

The health risk of animal-based foods remains intensely debated with varied motivations.[24].

 

Zoonoses

Animal diseases can spread to people via animals and their food products.  Some bacteria such as salmonella strains cause enteric disease in both animal and human hosts.   One of the first diseases that animal agriculture eliminated from domestic animal populations were ones causing significant human disease.   Brucellosis and tuberculosis were eliminated from domestic livestock populations in North America in the previous century through veterinary public health initiatives.  Coupled with milk pasteurization, both diseases have been well controlled.   The infectious organisms still exist in wildlife. Similarly, Trichinella spiralis infections in pigs were historically a risk when eating pork; today moving production indoors and away from wildlife has controlled the risk in commercial  pork production.    Consequently, pork cooking recommendations have relaxed, recommending leaving an “hint of pink” to enhance the eating experience[25].

 

Gut pathogens such as salmonella strains, O157 E. coli, and Campylobacter species can contaminate animal carcasses at slaughter and if the resultant animal food products are not cooked throughly, can result in human disease.  The risk is mitigated by food safety plans at slaughter that minimize cross contamination of meat.    One consequence of larger processing plants is that contamination in one plant can have a large impact[26].   Food inspection processes provided by the federal Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) use prevention principles centred around Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HAACP) to evaluate food safety plans in federally inspected meat processing plants[27]. These plans these require significant investment in refrigeration, sanitation, and traceability of food products.   Federally inspected meat products will have federal markings and certificates of inspection (figure 5).   Smaller scale processing plants may be licensed provincially, and those products can only marketed within the province.   Provincial requirements may differ from federal, and any associated outbreak will be limited to that province.  If animals are slaughtered directly on a farm the meat may be consumed by that household, but if it is sold or traded with others it must be inspected either provincially or federally.

 

Some zoonotic hazards can arise from improper storage or preservation.   If meat products are insufficiently refrigerated, bacteria from any source can grow to quantities posing a health threat.  Federal inspection standards require cold chain verification prior to sale and modern food transportation have temperatures monitoring processes.  Food safety training and awareness at the consumer level can further mitigate hazards, but humans make mistakes and food-based problems will always pose potential risk to our health.

 

 

 

 

Antimicrobial resistance

 

Antimicrobial compounds in food production do bring an economic benefit; however, based on an understanding of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), there is a growing concern that widespread use of antimicrobial drugs may create a drug resistance problem for both human and veterinary medicine. Data shows that AMR carrying bacteria can be present on meat products, shed in animal manure and dust exiting animal facilities[28].   As response both industry and public health authorities have initiatives to mitigate this AMR risk to the Canadian public.   The Veterinary Drugs Directorate branch of Health Canada, which approves the use of veterinary drugs has recently (2018) removed all claims for antimicrobial drugs licensed for growth promotion and made all antimicrobial use in livestock directed by veterinary prescription[29].  Veterinarians have guidelines for prescribing antimicrobials to food animals and some veterinary regulatory bodies have mandated AMR training as part their continuing education requirements.  Nationally the veterinary profession has developed prudent use guidelines to reduce the risk AMR in livestock and have classified veterinary drugs based on their importance for human use[30], and the Canadian integrated program antimicrobial resistance surveillance (cipars) project continues to monitor AMR in Canadian food[31]

 

All antimicrobial and pharmaceutical use in food animals also has a requirement time passes from treatment until slaughter.  This withdrawal time is to ensure any remaining residues of veterinary drugs fall below federal safety limits.   The maximum residual limits (MRLs) approved by Health Canada, are publicly available, and form the basis for the dosing, label claims and withdrawal times for veterinary drugs in Canada.[32]

 

Livestock producers similarly recognize concerns around antimicrobial use and have put into place quality assurance programs to ensure withdrawal times are met and that there is veterinary oversight of antimicrobial use.

 

AMR remains a major concern to some consumers and a further response by industry has been the growth of an ‘antibiotic free’ (ABF) animal production systems. To meet labelling requirements[33], participating producers do use not routine use of antimicrobial drugs when growing their animals.   If individual animals become infected, they can be treated, but they need to be identified and marketed as conventional animals.   ABF farms will use disease elimination and vaccination strategies to mitigate the need to routine prophylactic or metaphylactic antimicrobial use.   ABF farms consequently do have a higher cost of production and processors and consumers pay a premium price for these meat products.  What started as a niche market has become a regular choice alongside commodity meat products at retail.

 

Some consumers also have concerns about anabolic and other pharmaceuticals in the food chain. While these are also generally covered in most ABF claims, additional consumer concerns around herbicides and chemicals used in agriculture lead them to source organic or biodynamic meat products.  Organic certification[34] limits all chemical use which leads to a drop in crop productivity.  Organic livestock feeds are generally 2 to 3 times more expensive than conventional feeds.  Since feed is 70% or more the cost of raising livestock, organic meats tend to be more significantly more expensive.  Organic meats are a niche choice for motivated consumers.

 

Animal Welfare

 

The efficient production of livestock has been challenged by people who state that the animal’s needs are not considered.   Initial welfare recommendations were that animals we raise for food be given key freedoms, specifically: freedom from hunger, pain, fear, disease, given shelter and comfort and that they be allowed to express their natural behaviour.[35]   Moving animals inside has been successful in providing protection from the elements, predators, with the provision of ample feed animals aren’t hungry and they can grow efficiently.    The stocking density of animals in a pen or barn is generally optimized to provide maximum livestock throughput.  Like humans, farm animals will compete for feed and sleeping space, and in some cases such as poultry egg layers, gestating sows, or stanchioned dairy cattle are confined to small areas and their movement is restricted.   Animal welfare advocates argue that such confinement doesn’t allow animals to express their natural behaviour resulting frustrated or bored animals and ask for less confinement and an elimination of procedures such as tail docking, castration, dehorning and beak trimming.

 

The livestock Industry has responded by implementing welfare recommendations through national codes of practice[36].  Ongoing research looks for methods of implementation of welfare recommendation that do not reduce productivity and profitability.   For consumers who feel that is not moving fast enough, there are certified welfare programs that limit confinement or animal procedures[37].  These programs do have a higher cost of production and are so the meat and food products are sold to consumers for a premium.

 

Animal welfare concerns extend to transport and slaughter processes.  The Canadian Food Inspection agency oversees transportation and slaughter of livestock.  Slaughter requires the animal are stunned and unconscious prior to exsanguination which is required for food safety and aesthetic reasons.  Some religious slaughter prohibits stunning leading to some contention between religious and animal welfare principles[38].

 

There are consumers that avoid all animal food products not wanting to kill or exploit sentient life.  All food production though requires extensive rodent and pest control[39] with some methods such as poisons causing pain and slow death of targeted animals.   Just by our existence, regardless of what were eat, humans create negative welfare experience for other animal species and ecosystems.

 

Climate Change

 

Calculations on the impact of animal agriculture suggest that animals do contribute to greenhouse gas production, particularly methane.   Methane is generated from the decay and digestion of plant matter, and so ruminants such as cattle, sheep and goats who are herbivores release methane as they digest cellulose and plant matter.  Mono-gastric livestock, poultry and pigs generate less methane [figure 6].  The degree and amount of the contribution of livestock to climate change is under dispute.[40]

 

Livestock, particularly monogastrics (chickens and pigs) primarily eat foods that would normally not be used to feed people.   Soybeans are widely grown with most beans processed for oil, leaving the protein component, which humans generally do not consume, Pigs and poultry will efficiently convert that waste stream into foods we do consume.   Similarly, corn and grains are grown and further processed into subcomponents for human use.  Flour, corn starch, beer, fructose and more recently ethanol are derived from these crops.   Components not used for humans are fed to animals: wheat middlings, Distiller’s grains, as well as whole grains that don’t meet human quality standards are converted to meat through livestock.  If we remove livestock from the equation, these plant byproducts would be wasted.   Livestock are a valuable part of reducing food waste and efficient use of energy.

 

 

Future of Animal Agriculture

 

As a society we will continue to evolve our relationship with animal-based foods.   Niche markets featuring antibiotic free production, organic meats and welfare enhanced systems all exist and are competing for their place on the plate.

All livestock production methods have advantages and disadvantages.   Moving animal production back to extensive outdoor production gives animals more freedom but places them in contact with wildlife.  Pastured animals have a higher risk of contracting trichinella parasites, toxoplasmosis[41].  Regenerative agriculture where multiple animal species  are raised together in harmony with the soil has advantages[42], but requires motivated agricultural entrepreneurs willing to invest years building their farms.    Currently agriculture has worker shortages and to find enough farmers to supply food through smaller scale agriculture to feed 8 billion people may be difficult.  Efforts to force organic principles on a food production system has led to financial and political difficulties[43]  Wholesale change in food production needs to be done carefully.

 

Perhaps the most radical change to animal agriculture is the trend to grow meat in cell culture as opposed to living animals.   This technology would solve the welfare issues of raising sentient animals, but so far exists as an investment opportunity.  Whether it will prove to be as energy efficient as livestock converting 2kg of grain to 1 kg of meat and what proportion of consumers will chose cultured meats will remain to be seen.

 

Animal based foods have been with humans throughout our history, and they remain a significant source of nutrients and emotional comfort.   There currently is such variety of food choices that each person can chose based on their preferences.  The diversity of preferences will continue to drive innovation and evolution of food products.