Withrespecttodomesticatedanimals,however,thisargument
canbe misleadingfor several reasons. Farm animals have
beenselectedfortheirabilitytogrowandreproduceundera
wide rangeof conditionsandcircumstances,some adverse.
Hens,forexample,maycontinuetolayeggsnormallyeven
whenseverelyinjured.Furthermore,growthandreproduction
arefrequentlymanipulatedbypracticessuchasalterationof
the photoperiod or the addition of growth-promoting
substanceslikeantibioticstothefeed.Finally,onamodern
factoryfarmwhereasingleworkermaycareforasmanyas
2,000headofcattleor250,000broilerchickensperyear,the
practice of measuring growth or reproduction as eggs or
poundsofmeatproducedinrelationtoconstruction,fuel,or
feed costs provides little information about theproductive
status of an individual animal.^123
Dr. Bill Gee, foundation director of the Australian
government’s Bureau of Animal Health, has said:
It is claimed that productivityof farm animals is a direct
indicatorof their welfare. This misconception needs to be
buriedonceandforall.“Welfare”referstothewell-beingof
individualanimals, whereas “productivity” refers to output
per dollar spent or per unit of resources.^124
I have taken care to document the misconception in this
argumentatseveralpointsinthischapter.Itwouldbeniceto
thinkthattheargumentcouldbeburiedonceandforall,but
no doubt it will keep cropping up whenever agribusiness
apologiststhinkitusefultolulltheconsumerintobelieving
that all is well down on the farm.