Why the public is right to object to proposed ‘free-range’ rabbit farms
The public is right to object to the proposed ‘free-range’ rabbit farms from T&S Rabbits | Photo: Adobe / Chamnan Phanthong
Back in 2011, businessman Phil Kerry wanted to open six rabbit farms across England. Thousands of rabbits would have led miserable lives in battery cages before being killed for their flesh and fur. But the public would not stand for it and Kerry ended up revising his plans and has since established several ‘free-range’ farms instead.
Now he is trying to expand his business further, having recently submitted applications for three new farms to produce 10,000 rabbits each to the councils of Cornwall, Buckinghamshire, and Rutland. The public has once again been fierce in its opposition, with hundreds of objections lodged to the councils and petitions against the applications having gathered well over 120,000 signatures between them. The application to Cornwall Council was rejected last month on environmental grounds, but the other two are still awaiting decision. The planning applications are available here and here and the petitions are here and here.
From the strength of the public response, the fact that the new farms are described as ‘free-range’ has not reassured many people. It is certainly fair to be sceptical about the term, since rabbits can still be legally farmed in battery cages and there is no legal definition of free-range by which a rabbit farmer must abide. Indeed, Kerry has invented his own ‘free-range’ system on his existing farms which will be replicated on the new ones if they are approved.
According to the planning applications, the 250 breeding rabbits kept on each farm are closed in hutches immediately before giving birth but otherwise have access to outdoor grazing pens, while the ‘meat rabbits’ live outdoors in wire pens that can be moved so they have access to fresh grass.
“I wouldn’t say it was free-range,” says Vicky Bond, director of the Humane League and veterinary surgeon. “I think [Kerry] can say free range and people wouldn't know what it means and just assume [the rabbits] have lots of space. They don't have lots of space. And how many animals are actually going to be in that area?” The amount of rabbits per pen is not disclosed in the planning applications.
A recent investigation by Animal Aid into one of Kerry’s existing farms calls into question whether he is adhering to even his own arbitrary definition of free-range. Animal Aid’s investigators visited Kerry’s farm in Atlow, Derbyshire, where they obtained images showing 47 hutches on stilts kept inside wire pens, with around five hutches to each pen. Rabbits can be seen sitting inside the hutches, but over the course of several visits the investigators did not see them out on the grass. Animal Aid says the rabbits “have very limited room to move and stretch and these small hutches do not allow space for the large breed (New Zealand White) rabbits to sit upright with ears up, or to rear up, a natural stance for these prey animals to scout around for danger.”
Kerry’s explanation when asked was that the ground becomes muddy over winter and the rabbits can’t be left to sit in the mud. He also said the rabbits would be allowed on the grass in rotation. But this only raises the further question as to whether his free-range system is fit for purpose if the options are to have rabbits sitting either in mud or inside hutches for most of every day throughout the winter months.
Animal Aid’s investigation and the public outcry against the proposed new farms have been essential in questioning what it means for these farms to be free-range. Nobody else is going to check in on these rabbits to make sure they are raised in the manner claimed or that their welfare needs are being met in this system. In fact, rabbits have no species-specific welfare protections in the UK, and councils unfortunately do not have the power to assess or reject such planning applications on animal welfare grounds.
But even if these farms met some clearer, more common-sense definition of free-range, there are other reasons to be concerned, as campaigners have pointed out. One is that the slaughter of these rabbits will take place on-farm, which is allowed when the number of animals does not exceed 10,000. “I would have concerns in terms of who's going to do the slaughtering of these rabbits,” says Bond. “How are they trained? I've worked in some slaughterhouses for rabbits, it’s horrible. Their fur makes them very hard to stun. So you often have to stun them more than once.”
Another worry is that producing fur, rather than flesh, is the actual goal of these farms, since Kerry’s rabbit farming company T&S Rabbits, sells fur products on its website for hundreds of pounds. Though fur farming has been illegal in England and Wales since 2000, a loophole allows it to be sold as a by-product of food production. Kerry argues that it would be “wasteful” not to use the fur if a rabbit is to be killed for its meat. “Many members of the public would be horrified to learn that these gentle animals were being exploited and killed on their doorstep for fashion or for their flesh,” says Tor Bailey, Campaign Manager at Animal Aid.
It’s also important to consider how a free-range rabbit farm harms other animals. The application for Kerry’s Atlow farm from 2017 shows a picture of four dead foxes outside the perimeter fence of the farm. All of them were shot in one night - a perfectly legal form of ‘pest’ control. Predators will inevitably be attracted to a site where prey animals like rabbits are farmed outdoors, and the application document describes foxes in particular as a ‘constant threat’. The rabbit farms could also spread deadly diseases like Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD) to wild rabbit populations through their droppings left on the grass.
Even though most people are not going to eat produced from these farms if they are approved, since rabbit flesh is a niche product in the UK and not widely available, the case is a reminder that speciesism is built into animal agriculture, with inconsistent protections and definitions of concepts like ‘free-range’ across different animals. But even if there were a clearer standard for free-range farms guaranteeing substantial outdoor space to these rabbits, predators would still be shot, disease could still be spread, and with no moral justification to raise and kill them for human consumption, the lives of the rabbits would still be cut unnecessarily short.
SIGN THE PETITIONS: Though the consultation deadline for the Buckinghamshire and Rutland planning applications has passed, there is still time to sign the petitions and have your say.
Change.org: Refuse planning for intensive RABBIT MEAT FARM IN AMERSHAM
Change.org: Refuse Planning for an Intensive Rabbit Farm in Rutland
Also, visit Animal Aid’s website to find out more at AnimalAid.org.uk/StopRabbitFarms.
Claire Hamlett is a freelance journalist, writer and regular contributor at Surge. Based in Oxford, UK, Claire tells stories that challenge systemic exploitation of and disregard for animals and the environment and that point to a better way of doing things.
Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.
LATEST ARTICLES