Rensselaer Union, Volume 8, Number 12, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 December 1875 — Endurance versus Welfare of Animals. [ARTICLE]

Endurance versus Welfare of Animals.

Every student of agricultural history is probably aware that there have existed in all ages two widely-dift'erent methods of caring for domesticated animals. One is based upon tlie theory that animals have no rights-wliieh man is bound to respect, and that the limits of physical endurance mav be sought with as much propriety, aud the act be r as sinless, as that of seeking their greatest Comfort. The other system is the exact reverse of this. From whence came these opposing methods of treating dumb brutes it is not our provjdte at this time to inquire; but the readiness with which certain classes ot human beings have ever submitted to physical' torture for some presumed future good may suffice to show that the origin of either system is not an unfathomable mystery. It is enough, however, for us to know that there are men in this age, having animals in their care, who seek more persistently to discover how much torture a creature will endure and live than to learn' even its natural wants, leaving out of sight tlie question of mere physical comfort. It would be but reasonable to suppose that a man who has hafl tbe benefit of warm clothimr, a comfortable house and plenty of good food (all of which are unnatural, being wholly artificial additions), might think how acceptable some of these things would be to his animals during cold, stormy weather. It is true that our domesticated animals, through long exposure, have become able to withstand the season’s differences, but whether they are better for it, or man is to be exonerated for permitting their sufferings, is quite another question. We are not desirous of advocating a pampering, debilitating, liot-house'culture among domesticated animals, for there is such a thing as going to extremes in this direction; but instances of this kind are so rare that they may be put down as exceptional. There exists, however, among a large class of our farmers, an idea that protection from cold storms aud plenty of rich, nutritious food tend to make their •animals tender and a;re actually debilitating- -mv • These men will leave their Colts, calves and other young stock out in the barnyard, or perhaps in woodland pasture, during the winter months, holding to the erroneous idea that such exposure tends ifes toughen them; and if their hair turns tlie wrong way before spring, and their ribs stand out like hoops on a barrel, they say it is a good sign ot the toughening process. These abuses'are perpetrated to an alarming extent, even in the most Northern States, while in the Middle and Southern it is even worse; for in mild climates less care is bestowed upon animals than in ,cold; lienee an equal if not greater amount of .suffering. The loss of animals in proportion to the number kept, as well as their

appearance when in health, is all the evidenccbrequired to show the importance of better care, even in mild latitudes. Again, tire same qlass of men who claim that shelter, with atf*abundance of rich, nutritious tood, is not-necessary nor conducive to health, will tell us that salt for stock is but a foolish way of indulging an acquired taste, and that' animals will do. just as well without it. Some men are so jnucli in earnest over their theories in regard to such matters that theywill experiment upon themselves in order to see how much physical nature will withstand. We conclude that —3lr. Stephen Young, of lowa, who has lately written us on this subject, is one of this class, for he says that for the last twenty-five years he has abstained from the use of salt,' and for thirty-three years lie. has eaten “neither fishv’fiesh nor fowl.’*" As a clincher to his anti-salt theory lie says: “No carnivorous animal cats salt,’’ which may be true in the abstract; but we would like to know what a lion or tigel 1 is doing Inst takings good dose of salt when drinking the blood 'of his victims? Now, would it not be far the better plan to lay aside all these discussions, as well as experiments in regard to the -amount of suffering animals will endure, and try to learn what will give them the greatest pleasure and most comfort during their brief existence? This, we are pleased to say, is the humane and enlightened system now practised by the most successful breeders of fine stock. They do not seek to learn whether animals can do without salt, pure water, variety of food, or shelter in winter; but if these are conducive to health and comfort, they are freely given. Cows commanding SI,OOO and upward each, and yielding butter which sells at a dollar a pound in our markets, are not produced under the “ toughening system,” or fed upon bog hay without water or salt. Our finest and most valuable horses are bred by men who feed liberally and furnish warm stables for their animals; in fact, a capacity for physical endurance under deprivation of natural or artificially acquired needs is seldom considered. Domestication has produced many artificial wants in our animals as well as in man, and to ignore them is cruel, if not a positive sin. When our farmers seek to make their animals perfectly cornfortable at all times and seasons we shall hear of fewer failures to make stock-rais-ing profitable, and fewer losses by diseases. There will not only be warm stables and a variety of food for winter use, but shade trees in pasture, pure water, salt and other condiments provided for them. — N.Y. Sun. -