social values

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5xdwrMRNXo
The cows whose milk we humans drink had their calves taken away from them. The male "bobby calves" are unwanted by dairies. The RSPCA estimates that there are 600,000 Bobby calves born per annum in Victoria. Many are induced prematurely in order to minimise disruption of milking schedules for human convenience. They are usually dragged screaming from their mothers when they are little more than a day old, fed milk from a bucket, and prepared for slaughter. In a new low ('standard') Department of Primary Industries wants to increase time calves may be starved prior to slaughter from 24 hours to 30 in all states and territories. The study they have commissioned does not support their aim - thank heavens. (RSPCA article on bobby calves is at the end of this article.)

To save money, the powers that be want to stop feeding bobby calves 30 hours before slaughter. They have been ripped from their mothers, thrown about in transports and now permission is sought to starve them for longer. What sort of society have we become?

What the study says

The study (of which the Executive Summary is published below) suggests that 30 hours would be very unadvisable and suggests that the maximum time without milk for calves should not be more than 24 hours. Closer reading indicates that stress rapidly increases in severity 18 hours after the last meal, as measured by glucose levels. Of course any new-born mammal senses it will die without its mother and ordinary observations show that separation causes extreme suffering immediately as it occurs.

Of course many of us eat beef and veal. We need therefore to take responsibility for the conditions in which these foods are obtained. They involve killing, and that killing, in our society, is carried out very distantly from most of us. Have a look at the film and educate yourself. Then hopefully you will make a submission to improve standards rather than cause even greater suffering. You may even decide not to use dairy or beef products anymore. Its a sure thing that better standards will make people less inclined to eschew meat or milk.

Where to make submissions before 3 February 2011

Submissions are due by 3 feb. 2011 at http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/australian-animal-welfare-standards-and-guidelines/land-transport/bobby-calf-time-off-feed-standard.cfm

1. The proposed standard amendment to SB4.5 B4 Specific requirements for the land transport of cattle (175 KB) for a maximum of 30 hours without a liquid feed from the time of last feeding to the next feed or slaughter of the calf, contributes to the necessary specifications for protecting the welfare of calves while being transported. Source: http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/australian-animal-welfare-standards-and-guidelines/land-transport/bobby-calf-time-off-feed-standard.cfm

In fact, the study used to inform the proposed amendment strongly counsels against more than 24 hours without food.

These calves are crying for their mothers and their mothers would be crying for them. A very sad industry. Cows are not the stupid and insensitive animals many of us have been educated to believe. They are creatures placed in very restricted environments who are not able to organise, express themselves or flee.

The video describes the life of a recently born calf destined to be killed for veal over a timeline for the 30 hours. Feel free to send to anyone. It might help with your submissions. Have a look. It is not sensational and it won't make you faint. It will just make you feel a bit like doing something to make these calves last day and a half better, if you hadn't realised how poorly these animals are treated.

Official Calf study for this proposed standard makes gruesome reading

Cited below is the Executive Summary from the "Final Report Determining a suitable time off feed for bobby calf transport under Australian conditions, Dairy Australia Project No. TIG 124, involving Andrew Fisher, Peter Mansell, Bronwyn Stevens, Melanie Conley, Ellen Jongman, Mariko Lauber & Sue Hides, dated May 2010, and provided by the Faculty of Veterinary Science University of Melbourne Victoria, Australia Victorian Department of Primary Industries at 600 Sneydes Road, Werribee Victoria, Australia Victorian Department of Primary Industries, 475 Mickleham Road, Attwood Victoria, Australia Victorian Department of Primary Industries, 1 Stratford Road, Maffra Victoria, Australia

Executive summary for calf study for Dept Primary Industries

"The recent development process for the Australian Standards and Guidelines for the Welfare of Animals: Land Transport of Livestock highlighted that the transport and management of bobby calves remains a contentious area. Debate has centred on determining a suitable maximum period that calves may be ‘off-feed’ during the transport process.

The objectives of this experiment were: 1) to determine the welfare and metabolic state of 5- to 10-day-old dairy calves in response to increasing time off feed- up to 30 hours, in conjunction with three transport scenarios; and 2) to use these results to provide objective scientific evidence, along with published information, to support the Australian development of an appropriate standard for maximum permissible time off feed for the bobby calf supply chain.

The study was conducted in three replicates over three consecutive weeks from late August to mid September on a commercial dairy farm in Gippsland, Victoria.

A total of 60, 5 to 10-day-old male dairy calves were utilized across four treatments (n = 15 per treatment): 1) Control- remain in situ without feed for 30 hrs; 2) No feed for 30 hrs including transport for 6 hrs to a new environment; 3) No feed for 30 hrs including transport for 12 hrs to a new environment; 4) No feed for 30 hrs including transport for 1 hr to a new environment, remaining for 6 hrs, then transport for 5 hrs to another new environment. These different treatments were designed to simulate the types of transport scenarios to which bobby calves are currently or likely to be subjected as part of the commercial industry.

The day before treatment, 20, 5- to 10-day-old male calves were randomly assigned to one of the four treatments (n=5) balanced for age. Prior to this calves had been managed by farm staff in accordance with standard farm practice. On the day of treatment, calves were offered their normal daily milk allocation of 5L at 0600h.

Because the national vendor declaration requirement is for calves to be fed within 6 hrs of transport, calves in treatments 2, 3 and 4 were loaded at 1200h and transported. A recognised calf transporter was commissioned to transport the calves in a standard commercial vehicle that is regularly used for transporting these animals. During transport, calves were on unbedded flooring and confined to one of the dividing pens on the truck at a stocking density of 0.3m2 per animal. The transport driver took a similar predetermined route on each of the 3 transport days returning to the farm at regular intervals to allow the calves to be checked.
Calves in treatment 4 were unloaded after 1 hr of transport into a temporary holding yard (1300h) with no water trough. Calves in treatment 2 were unloaded in the destination environment after 6 hr of transport (1800h). Calves in treatment 4 were reloaded after 6 hrs in the holding environment (1900h). Calves in treatments 3 and 4 were then unloaded in the destination environment at 2400h. All calves were allowed access to water from 2400h.

The study concluded after 30 hr of withdrawal at 1200h on the second day. At this point all calves in treatments 1 to 4 were fed milk and handed back to the farm to manage before they were transported to an abattoir for slaughter two days later.

3 Prior to treatment calves were fitted with behaviour loggers to measure standing, lying and walking behaviour. Calves were also fitted with rectal temperature loggers. Blood samples were collected by jugular venepuncture from all calves at the following time points: 0600h (Pre-feeding); 0900h (Post-feeding) ; 1200h (Pre-loading); 1800h ; 2100h;
2400h; 0600h; 1200h (immediately before re-feeding).

Blood samples were analysed to measure biochemical variables indicative of:

• metabolic state (glucose, 3-hydroxybutyrate, lactate)
• hydration (packed cell volume, total serum protein)
• colostrum feeding (gamma-glutamyl transferase)
• muscular exertion and bruising (creatine kinase)

Calves were weighed immediately prior to transport on the day of treatment (approximately 6 hours off feed) and at the conclusion of the study the following day at 30h off feed- this final weight was prior to the calves being re-fed.

Behaviour and temperature data did not reveal major effects. The blood results indicate that transport per se was not a significant additional impost on the animals in terms of the key variables indicating metabolic status and hydration. Muscle enzyme levels did increase somewhat in the 12-h transport group compared with the other groups. Most variation in blood variables measured was due to time off feed, rather than transport duration.

Hydration levels appear to be relatively unaffected by the time off feed. In terms of energy status, plasma glucose concentrations were the most altered variable. These increased after feeding, declined slowly for some hours, and then declined more steadily after about 18 h off feed. This pattern was relatively consistent between treatment groups. Mean glucose at 30 h was close to, but not below published reference values for dairy calves less that 2 weeks of age. However, a proportion of calves (~12%) were below the lower reference value at this time point, and this proportion was slightly greater than would be assumed by chance.

It is our conclusion that 30 h with good practice in other aspects of calf management and transport is defensible as an outer ‘legal’ limit for time off feed for bobby calves. It would appear that any extension of time off feed beyond 30 h would be decidedly unadvisable, and our results would not support such exemptions. Best practice management of transported calves would involve time off feed not longer than around 24 hrs."

Bobby Calves - notes from RSPCA Vic

[Source: RSPCA Victoria, "Bobby Calves":

"In order to produce milk cows have to give birth to a calf every year. Bobby calves are the unwanted male offspring born to dairy cows. Currently there are an estimated 600,000 Bobby calves born per annum in Victoria. Many calves are born prematurely after an induced birth as a way of keeping milking herds on a uniform milk production cycle. These male calves are usually separated from their mothers at a little more than a day old, and then fed milk from a bucket.

At around four days old these calves are then transported to an abattoir to be slaughtered for veal. Under the “National Bobby Calf Declaration” farmers must now sign a form stating that the calves they are selling are older than five days. However this is difficult to prove as the only currently-used measure to gauge the age of Bobby calves is the dryness of their umbilical cord. This measure has been found to be a poor indicator of age. A recent study found that if cord dryness was used to select calves for sale 86.4% of Friesian bull calves and 100% of cross- bred calves would be sold prior to their fifth day of life. (1)

A government-sponsored workshop to identify animal welfare issues within Animal Industries (2) determined that an “extremely important welfare issue” was the number of calves being loaded at three to five days of age. These calves are ill prepared to stand up to the rigours of transport, particularly as they are often transported at stocking densities that do not allow them to lie down. As farmers are not required to keep records that would enable individual calves to be identified and their date of birth proven (or if they have been induced) many calves are transported at only three days old.

According to the Code of Accepted Farming Practice for the Welfare of Cattle, calves can be transported for up to 10 hours and not fed for up to 24 hours prior to slaughter. Unfortunately even this low level of care cannot be enforced as this code of practice is only advisory in Victoria. Anecdotal reports suggest that many calves are transported for longer periods and remain unfed for up to 48 hours prior to slaughter. Holding facilities for calves are often open yards with concrete or dirt floors with no bedding or shelter (3). Whilst the Code of Practice states that electric goads should not be used on Bobby calves, these devices are routinely used by handlers, often in front of Government Audit teams (3).

RSPCA Victoria wants legislated codes of practice for animal welfare in Victoria to allow prosecution/penalties for non-compliance. Production animal Codes of Practice primarily define only the most limited levels of animal welfare and even these do not have to be complied with. This is the only way that the welfare of low dollar value animals such as Bobby calves can be protected.

Other issues that RSPCA wants to be addressed:

*

The practise of calve induction should be replaced by better on farm herd management. Induced
calves should not be sold and must be humanely euthanased on farm.
*

Bobby calves must be slaughtered within 10 hours of farm gate.
*

Calves should be at least 10 days old prior to loading. Farmers should be required to keep
appropriate records to ensure that under-aged calves are not sold.
*

Holding facilities for Bobby calves must have dry, non-slip surfaces and be well sheltered at all times.

REFERENCES

1.

Drying times of umbilical cord of dairy calves (Australian Veterinary Journal 83 (6) 2005 Sue J Hides.
2.

A Workshop to Identify Animal Welfare Issues within Animal Industries 2002- Animal Welfare Centre.
3.

The Jack Green Fellowship to study and document guidelines and technologies for the management of
surplus dairy calves which could be adapted by the Victorian dairy industry to enhance Bobby calf welfare
and improve the quality and yield of Bobby calf veal - Sue Hides 1999."

"A Christian nurse who refused to remove a crucifix at work has lost her claim for discrimination after an employment tribunal panel ruled that she should have reached a compromise with her hospital employers."
[The (UK) Sunday Times, 7th April 2010, 'Crucifix ban nurse Shirley Chaplin loses NHS discrimination case'].

The case was first reported back in September 2009 by the (UK) Telegraph newspaper article, Nurse faces the sack for refusing to take off her cross'

UK Equality Act Open to Subjective Interpretation

It is inconsistent that a small neck cross worn by British nurse Shirley Chaplin could be health risk to patients, while bangles worn by Sikh nurses and while headscarves and long sleeves worn by Muslim nurses are not deemed to be a health risk to patients.

One rule for some?
Anti-Christian rules in a traditionally Christian country?
Workplace bias towards non-Christians?

The tribunal's judgment is inconsistent and discriminatory and so misinterprets the principle of equity in the workplace. It makes a mockery of the law. Worse, it contradicts and outlaws traditional British Christian values.

The UK Equality Bill became an Act of Parliament on 8 April 2010. [Easy Read Version].

The UK Equality Act 2010 was introduced to replace outdated, complex and inconsistent anti-discrimination legislation. It is intended to provide a more simplied legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all people in the UK.

The spirit and goals of the UK Equality Act 2010 seem fair and equitable for the most part by encouraging mutual respect, equal treatment and opportunity to people irrespective of gender, race, age, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity, disability, etc.

But is it achieving this?

The Shirley Chaplin case highlights a fundamental oversight in the legislation by permitting subjective interpretation of the Equality Act. The Equality Act's aim of addressing disadvantage and under-representation in British society, especially in the workforce, has to be consistent to be universally accepted across British society.

Shirley's tiny tight neckless cross a patient health risk? What a spurious diversion! What a dangerous social precedent for Britain! What gross injustice! The tribunal's biased decision exposes the failing of the Equality Act and a betrayal of British local tradition.

Are they going to ban church bells across Britain in case it may upsets immigrant Muslims?

The Equality Act rings dangerously like the Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement of 1938 which sought appeasement to avoid conflict. But equality is not about appeasement. It is about applying fairness consistently.

Inequality still prevails under the Equality Act. Now the pendulum has swung against the traditional Christian Brits themselves. What next, Sharia Law in the Royal Courts of Justice?

"Positive Action to Increase Diversity" - means just what?

The Equality Act also has a troubling component as well. It prescribes "Using positive action to increase diversity" to the extent that social minority groups should be represented at executive level of government, across the judiciary, in commerce and indeed across all social institutions.

It states:

Positive action?

Comments:

Given Britain's long Parliamentary history, given that mass immigration has only been happening since post WWII, fifteen MPs of differing races is frankly a significant representation. But an MP does not have to be of the same racial background to be capable of representing special interests of migrants of a certain racial subgroup in Britain.

Britons are represented based on the electorate they live in, not according to race.
Would it not be approximating Apartheid to seek parliamentary representation on a racial basis. When immigrants settle in a country they assimilate into the population. Migrants to Britain become British.

In any case, how does Britain compare to the countries where many of these different races originate? I would argue that it fairs incredibly fairly. How many non-indigenous MPs are there for instance in Indian, Pakistan or Bangladesh for instance? The following table lists where most UK immigrants came from in 2001.

And yes, ideally the top university positions should be held 50/50 men/women. But are senior administrative roles the types of jobs most women want? Yes the opportunities should be equal to women as they are to men and this university issue perhaps requires case by case analysis, but what is the end game by putting token females in these roles just to make the statistics comply with some utopian ideal? It would only undermine the rights of women to be treated equally as men on merit.

The problem with this utopian social prescription is that it prioritizes perfect and complete demographic representation irrespective of merit. The Act also fails to clarify the underlying vaues of British society and to provide for clear guidance when minority diversity clashes irreconcilably with the social values of the majority.

Britain is naturally dominated by Britons of Christian Anglo-Saxon origin (those born there with local ancestry). It is therefore logical that most social institutions are dominated by those of Christian Anglo-Saxon origin. Leadership is a factor of many complex attributes of a person particularly the understanding of the culture of an organisation. Cultural fit is a mission critical attribute of a leader.

Migration is changing the demographic makeup and steadily new arrivals are being represented, but social change takes time and must take time. The alternative of rapid social change is to risk social unrest. Britain is one of the few ancient societies that can lay claim to having averted revolution.

Leaders of UK society, indeed any society should be chosen on merit. If all minorities are to be represented on all social institutions, that representation risks being tokenistic.

It is a noble and ethical aim to be nondiscriminatory. It is totalitarian to impose minority interests on the majority.

Perhaps migrants with vastly different values sets to the dominant British values should consider the reciprocal application of such a law in their country of origin. How long will it take for such social equality to apply in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

The new UK equality legislation is being subjective interpreted to enable some social minorities to be more equal than others.

The legislation needs to go back to the UK's legislation drafting board.