Featured Article (April 2004)

The Horse — Livestock or Companion?

Replenish the earth…and have dominion…over every living thing. Genesis 1:28

"Replenish" and "dominion" are words that carry a burden of responsibility to care for the earth and every living thing, including our horses. We care for our horses in different ways, depending on their use for our profit or pleasure. Putting ourselves first is the human way but, fortunately, it does not bypass our obligation to care for our animals and to make wise choices on their behalf.

Whether the horse should be regarded as livestock or a companion animal is a serious question, because these two categories are treated differently—culturally, morally and legally. The dichotomy applies fundamentally to the use of an animal. Is it too simple to say that livestock are used for profit, companions for pleasure? Unfortunately, a single arbitrary category is often applied to a species for legal purposes, and there’s the rub.

The question of livestock or companion is so important that it was the subject of a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Animal Science in 2002. The first speaker put the case for livestock, the second for companion. The third described the struggle in California that culminated in a 1998 Act that prohibited "horse slaughter and sale of horsemeat for human consumption." Last was myself, playing the role of economist-philosopher, a provocateur invited to leave everybody unsettled and thinking.

What are livestock?

Livestock are domesticated animals used for production and profit. The word comes from Old Norse. Sea-going Vikings spread their 4-letter DNA and their 4-letter words through Britannia in the middle ages. St-o-c-k were sticks or trees. At home the Vikings were tree farmers, and their livestock were animals nurtured and harvested like trees. The Vikings were hard on animals back then, but their descendents in Britain and Russia as well as the Nordic countries are today among the most compassionate to animals.

The British Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has officially recognized five freedoms for livestock:

• Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition.
• Freedom from discomfort due to an unsuitable environment.
• Freedom from pain, injury and disease.
• Freedom from restraint on normal behavior.
• Freedom from fear and distress

These freedoms represent natural rights of animals, thereby recognizing their self-awareness and self-interest. Most animal owners and care-givers, including hands-on farmers, pander to their animal’s self-interest because a happy animal usually performs better than a sour one. You get more milk from contented cows.

Moving from philosophy to science, we measure animal welfare as the reciprocal or opposite of stress. In 1936, Hans Selye introduced into medicine a novel concept of stress as the general response (or general adaptation syndrome) to any noxious stimulus. Stress is cumulative, so although a little may be good, a lot is eventually bad.

Stress can be measured readily by behavioral protocols and blood analysis, preferably by combinations of the two. Pioneering research on stress in poultry by Walter Gross, Paul Siegal and Ann Dunnington at Virginia Tech has led to improved housing and production, and it has received world-wide recognition. Research on weaning stress in Thoroughbreds by my students at The MARE Center has revealed the value of supplementing pasture with minerals, especially zinc. We are waiting patiently for world-wide recognition.

Stress has also been measured in mares confined to collect urine for estrogens. The 2002 decline in estrogen replacement therapy has released thousands of farmed mares for other uses—adoption as pets or sale for meat. The main stress research on horses has concerned transport, especially of racehorses, and the results have led to spectacular improvements that greatly benefit the racing industry. Similar improvements could be applied to the transport of horses for slaughter, a nasty word best left to plundering and pillaging Vikings. Would euthanasia be fairer for the carefully tested methods used in today’s harvesting of meat?

Back to fun and games. More stress research is needed on the training of competitive horses. The basis of training is over-compensation in the repair of the little damage done by a tolerable stress. A series of well-timed tolerable stresses creates and climbs a staircase of increasing strength and emotional ease. On the other hand, too strong or too frequent stress leads to over-training and a sour horse, athlete or soldier.

Animal welfare is the key to effective livestock husbandry. Our mantra at The MARE Center is the reciprocating relationship between man and horse—the better we care for them, the better they perform for us.

What are companion animals?

Bread (French, com together, pain bread) is the key; companions are the people with whom we break bread. Ironically our common pets are carnivores or flesh eaters. Dogs eat bread to please their masters, but cats remain strict carnivores behaviorally and biochemically. Perhaps that is why I regard compliant dogs as true companion animals and aloof cats as threats to human superiority.

The subject of money can no longer be put off. Livestock have overt dollar values—extrinsic, market, and replacement. They are clear-cut commodities. In contrast, companion animals may have additional intrinsic or sentimental value. Say you can replace your 3 year old Holsteiner with another just like it for $5,000. Your naive fiancé feeds it 20 lb of sweet feed by mistake, and 3 hours later it shows signs of colic. You send it in to the Equine Veterinary Hospital. In a couple of hours you are informed that the surgery could cost up to $9,000. You agree to pay, fired by love and guilt. The extra $4,000 intrinsic value of your horse reflects sentiment and marks it as a companion animal.

After the surgery, the bill is $11,000, and your Holsteiner has developed laminitis. How much more are you prepared to pay for your companion’s intrinsic value?

All of us have been through the anguish of such decision making, which is part economics, part ethics, and part straight sentiment—beyond reasoning and in the end a "visceral comfort decision." So should we agree to define a companion animal as one that has intrinsic value?

A common aphorism is that companion animals are like children who never grow up. Companion animals are usually deeply involved in the life of the family. This family involvement is often put up as the characteristic that separates companion animals from livestock.

The final point is the nastiest. We do not use companion animals for meat. We have laws against it, as will be discussed below.

In view of the above, let’s define a companion animal or pet as one that fits any 3 of the following 5 criteria: eats breads, has intrinsic value, family member, used for pleasure, and not used for human consumption. According to this definition, a black bear in a zoo is a pet. (This example is intended to illustrate the inestimable value of definitions.)

"Horses are Agriculture"

This title was offered by Robert J. Coleman, PhD, from the University of Kentucky at the Animal Science session mentioned above. Horses certainly are agriculture in Kentucky—the breeding industry alone musters 80,000 jobs and $5-billion economic benefit. Racing holds its own because of the Derby in Louisville and the sales pavilion in Lexington. Its economic impact is another $1.7-billion. The racing crowd is a cross-section of the whole community in Kentucky, quite different from the preponderance of die-hards in most other venues.

Dr. Coleman remarked that the production of horses is done by farming. The market demands horses suitable for sport and recreation—this is value added marketing. Value added agriculture is also represented by converting corn to bourbon whiskey and tobacco to cigarettes.

In Kentucky, let me aver, the horse is treated commonly as an individual, unlike the usual handling of livestock. Top horses also carry intrinsic value as collector’s items, with enthusiasts competing at auction because of the promise of the horse’s bloodlines. Horses are handled while young to make them companionable. As Dr Coleman pointed out, horses are agriculture but also something more, especially in Kentucky. And before we leave Kentucky, let’s admit that a state cannot be all that bad when its top three products are tobacco, whiskey and horses.

"Horses ARE companions, but…"

This title was offered by Mark A. Russell, PhD, from Purdue University at the Animal Science session mentioned above. He acknowledged the agrarian past of the horse. Then he cited a 1999 American Horse Council survey that placed only 10 to 20% of horses used for a commercial industry or profit motive, which leaves over 80% in the companion category. The same survey determined that the demand for horses depended on the availability of discretionary income, which is a function of the general economy (not specifically the agricultural economy).

Dr Russell stated that veterinarians and suppliers confirmed "the majority of horse owners approach expenditures with a mentality more similar to cat or dog owners than to production farmers." A Purdue survey found that 87% of pony clubbers thought of their horses as part of the family. Despite these and other characteristics of companion animals, Dr Russell suggested that there are justifiable legal, political and economic reasons for maintaining the horse industry as part of the agricultural business sector.

Finally, Dr Russell suggested that "the future viability of departments of animal science and veterinary medicine depends on how they respond to the changing demographics of our society." That boils down to how our prospective students and their families think about animals, and whether they are more interested in livestock or companion animals.

There’s no doubt about veterinary medicine—over 75% of graduates go into small animal practice. In animal science, however, most of the leadership remains devoted to livestock production of human food. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of animal science departments in North America that treat the horse, dog and cat on the same educational level as livestock.

In most animal science departments, about 65% of students claim the horse as their major species of interest. Dog and cat are not in question, but about 75% of animal science students express an interest in veterinary school, and 75% of veterinary graduates end up with dogs and cats, so we may deduce that over 50% of animal science students have a major interest in dogs and cats. What is the solution to this inconsistency between the interests of students and those of the faculty?

If the present trend continues, colleges of agriculture will surely lose companion animals entirely to veterinary medicine. That would deprive students of valuable knowledge that is more in the province of animal science than veterinary medicine, such as the physiological and nutritional bases of higher performance. Alternatively, colleges of agriculture could split today’s animal science into two departments—production animal science and companion animal science—with resources allocated according to the number of customers. Small departments are notoriously inefficient, so I would prefer a large animal science department that fairly balances the interests of students and their families with those of the commodity industries.

The California perspective—politics, reality and society

This title was offered by Carolyn Stull, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, at the Animal Science session mentioned above. In the 1990s, California had a million horses, and each year about 3,000 were shipped out of state for meat. The Prohibition of Horse Slaughter and Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption Act of 1998 made selling, buying or killing a horse for meat a felony, and the offering of horsemeat for human consumption a misdemeanor. Section 2(b) states: "Horses are not raised for food or fiber and are taxed differently than food animals."

Do those words mean that horses are not livestock in California? It seems so to me, but Dr Stull states, "Interestingly, the supporters considered horses as livestock and part of agriculture, but not food animals."

The campaign, "Save the Horses," emphasized the sentimental relationship between humans and horses, "our children’s pets." It portrayed the transport and killing of horses as "odious, ugly and gut-wrenching." An illustrative videotape from the Humane Society of the United States about horse transport and slaughter readily induces revulsion and nausea.

Dr Stull pointed out that the 1998 Act has had unintended consequences. More horses were neglected or abandoned. Similarly, carcass disposal became a communal problem. Shipment of horses to adjacent states became furtive. The 1998 Act led to the dissolution of the 1991 Equine Protection Act that among other things enabled authorities to inspect horses leaving the state and recover stolen or missing horses.

Effectiveness of the 1998 California Act depends on cooperation from neighboring states. Interstate commerce is regulated by the Federal government, so it is not surprising that the 108th Congress has been pondering H.R. 857 "to prevent the slaughter of horses…for human consumption" in 2003.

Leaving Dr Stull behind, let me remind you that food preferences are notoriously personal and cultural. They are slow to respond to the efforts of nutritionists, doctors and public health authorities. Perhaps the political success of an American ban on horsemeat will pave the way for eliminating nutritional threats to health, such as beef, sugar and coffee. My nutritional colleagues in Brittany insist that if our forebears had domesticated horses for meat and milk, then today’s human sloths would be spared saturated fatty acids, and babies would be spared cow’s milk antigens. The 1998 California Act and the present Federal H.R. 857 show that culture can overwhelm science in politics.

Have I eaten horsemeat? Only once, and it was under most unusual and difficult circumstances. Afterwards I tossed and turned all night while every horse I’ve ever known and loved came galloping back to greet me.

"Value added equiculture: metamorphosis from livestock to companion"

This title was offered by myself at the Animal Science session mentioned above. It clicked on "value added," which has replaced "sustainable" as today’s battle cry for agriculture. Originally value added applied to a region or country and meant that a secondary industry was surmounted on primary production. For example, butter and clothes were made from milk and wool, respectively. A recent twist has applied value added to the individual farm enterprise, with the primary producer striving for a fatter share of the vertical pie. For example, the cattlemen will own the packing plant, and the stud farms will own the sale pavilion.

Equiculture is a word being used by the horse community in Europe and deserves an airing in the USA. It means something more than the horse industry. It also encompasses the romance of the horse, which has out sped all other animals in human history and legend, in our literature, music and art. This hallowed heritage adds unique value to the horse.

The commercial aspect of equiculture has two parts—production and utilization. The primary industry of horse production fits into agriculture, the secondary industry of horse utilization into recreation. Which industry is more important to Americans?

If we rank industries according to their dollar values, some of the results are surprising (see table of gross domestic product, 2000). Note that recreation beats both the secondary food business (supermarkets and restaurants) and all of primary agriculture. The fact that Americans pay so much for it supports a claim that recreation fills human needs just as important as food. If so, any tendency to regard the horse as less worthy than food animals because it is recreational, discretionary or frivolous is unjustifiable.

Money value of the annual flow of goods and services

A value added benchmark is an approximate 5-fold factor for food in the USA. Food’s value is about 2% of the GDP at the farm gate and 10% at the human mouth, the added value coming from processing and distribution. The potential for recreation, including competitive sport, adds much more value to the horse. A sound 2-year old Thoroughbred worth $500 of beef-equivalents is commonly worth $2500 for use as a companion animal, 10-times that for sports, and 100-times that for racing. These factors represent added value at the farm gate with the economic flux of recreation still to come.

During their agricultural phase, horses are treated as grazing livestock by farmers who regard animals as economic commodities. During their recreational phase, however, horses are treated as pets by owners and other care-givers, who often cater to the whims of the horse. Horsemen who recognize a horse’s self-interest and self-awareness are, in effect, acknowledging its intrinsic rights. These are not the hard rights of activists, but soft, usually unspoken rights that allow a horse to remain contented and perform in a pleasing manner. This metamorphosis of owner attitude adds value to the horse. It must be observed by all who serve these owners, such as veterinarians, nutritionists, trainers, county wardens, lawyers and legislators.

Up to here I feel comfortable about posing the horse as livestock for part of its life (procreation) and companion animal for another part (recreation). There’s no comfort, however, in thinking about our horse’s death. Should it die like livestock or like a pet?

Termination like livestock is offensive to horse lovers. Most want to think of only two happy endings. One is competent euthanasia, preferably done by a veterinarian. The expense is about $100 for professional services and a variable amount for carcass disposal. The other is an old horse fat and happy on pretty pasture until it fails to awake from sleep. This day-dream inhabits an astonishing number of people. In reality old horses passing away from natural causes usually suffer for days if not months. The fire of life flickers, and vital systems fail. Critical is the immune system; its failure paves the way for cancers and infections. These clinical conditions are discomforting and often painful. Pre-death suffering is what we should fear, rather than death itself. So the retirement farm does not let us escape happy ending number one, competent euthanasia.

Should unwanted horses of indigent people be destroyed by humane societies? Most unwanted dogs and cats are killed by decompression, which is cheap (sorry, highly cost effective). A horde of dogs or cats is placed in a sealed room, and the air is pumped out. I’ve seen a movie of dozens of dogs undergoing decompression but will spare you the misery of knowing how it looks. This decompression movie was made by an animal shelter, but it is not on sale like the one depicting horse slaughter. If you saw both videos, you would prefer slaughter by captive bolt to decompression by humane society.

The equine metamorphosis from livestock to companion animal adds value but hurts at the end. Fortunately we have dominion over horses and on their behalf will always be careful and usually choose wisely.

David S. Kronfeld, MA(hc), PhD, DSc, MVSc, MRCVS, DACVIM, DACVN is the Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Agriculture, and Professor of Veterinary Medicine at Virginia Tech. He is the Research Director of the Middleburg Agricultural Research and Extension Center, where he supervises six graduate students. His honors include the Dooley Memorial Award of the International Sled Dog Veterinary Medical Association, 1997, the Sir Frederick Smith Memorial Medal of the British Equine Veterinary Association, 1999, and the Distinguished Service Award of the Equine Nutrition and Physiology Society, 2001.

The Ox and the Donkey

In ancient Armenia on the southern slope of the Caucasus Mountains, a family owned an ox and a donkey. The ox pulled the plough and the heavy farm wagon. He lived in a cold old barn and was fed rough hay. The ox was dusty and spattered with dried mud.

The donkey said to the ox, "Wouldn’t you like to be like me? I pull the cart to market. I take the family to Church. My stable is clean and warm. The master grooms me. My feet are trimmed and polished. The children feed me grain and hug me."

The ox brooded about the donkey and became dissatisfied with his lot in life. He became sour with the plough and draggin’ with the wagon. The master fretted about the ox. Eventually he said to the children, "Go to the fields and bring back peppers and onions, which are tasty in beef shish kebob."

This warning against the danger of envy comes from The Arabian Nights, a collection of ancient tales from Arabia and Persia. The vehicle is the difference between livestock and companion animals, which is also the subject of my main article, The Horse --- Livestock or Companion? The setting of The Ox and The Donkey is long ago and far away, so we cannot blame the question on contemporary California culture.

My version is condensed and modified from the biography of Vartan Gregorian, one of today’s most enlightened and inspiring educators. The Road to Home, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2003, is recommended reading about human values and American opportunity.