Troubling Matter

This year, a matter - long-troubling - has come to prominence. Though about a particular place and circumstance, it displays some fundamentals, relevant across the globe. 

On the island of St Kilda, a World Heritage Site off the west coast of Scotland, are Soay sheep. Sheep die there each year from starvation, illness and parasitism. The starvation comes about because the size of the flock increases to an extent that there are not enough food resources to keep sheep fed adequately. 

Responsibility for the sheep on St Kilda resides with the Scottish government and the National Trust for Scotland (NTS). Monitoring of the sheep by The St Kilda Soay Sheep Project has taken place since 1985. 

The BBC reports (Starving sheep on St Kilda need help, say Western Isles vets, 10th May) an NTS spokeswoman as saying:

‘The Soay sheep are an important part of the St Kilda archipelago’s heritage, and originate from the population on the island of Soay where they were treated as a wild population for hundreds of years, unmanaged save for periodic hunting by the archipelago’s inhabitants.

The sheep will continue to be treated as feral animals with a presumption against intervention, except in exceptional circumstances, such as a serious outbreak of disease that threatens the sheep populations.’

The BBC also reports the Scottish government as saying ‘the history of the sheep meant they were not considered to be a species that was commonly domesticated within the British islands.’ The BBC report continues that a spokesman said ‘This means that provisions contained within the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006 would not apply. This has been the consistent position of the Scottish government for many years.’ The spokesman added, according to the BBC, ‘We recognise that within any wild population of animals in Scotland there will be different challenges from year to year which may impact population numbers.’

Two retired vets, David Buckland and Graham Charlesworth, have launched a petition to The Scottish Parliament ‘to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the definition of protected animals contained in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and associated guidance, to ensure the feral sheep on St Kilda are covered by this legislation, enabling interventions to reduce the risk of winter starvation and the consequential suffering of sheep.’ 

Whether the sheep are regarded as feral or wild seems to be a critical thing in this whole matter. David Buckland ‘stresses that “feral” does not mean “wild” ’ and he says ‘An animal can’t be both’ (Eve McLachlan, ‘Feral on an uninhabited island, some dying from starvation: Uist Campaigners bring St Kilda sheep concerns to Parliament’, Press & Journal newsletter, Highlands & Islands, 6th May 2023). In a piece ‘St Kilda’s sheep in grave danger, vets warn’ (welovestornoway.com, 13th February 2023), is the comment ‘It appears that the official line is to regard the Soay sheep as wild animals and treat them the same way as wild deer despite being at odds with animal welfare health guidance that specifically includes the protection of feral sheep, goats and ponies.’

Earlier in the piece, were the remarks

‘… David Buckland and Graham Charlesworth are reportedly saying that no one appears to be taking responsibility for the management of the feral sheep, a situation that is being exacerbated by Scotland’s chief vet failing to include St Kilda’s sheep in animal health and welfare legislation aimed at preventing unnecessary harm and cruelty.

The veterinarians are alarmed that the feral sheep are being left to endure illness, parasites and hunger. As a result, it is believed that some 12,000 adult sheep and more than 4,000 lambs have died in the last two decades.’   

So, because of their perceived heritage, the sheep on St Kilda now are not intervened with. Some starve as an outcome. The sheep are not managed. The flock is not kept to a size commensurate with the available grazing on St Kilda. No supplementary feed is given. This is going too far beyond letting sheep do what is natural to them. Sheep still need to call upon humans for some help and care, and some decisions about where to be put to have appropriate and adequate basic resources of food, water, shelter. 

The ‘sheep on St Kilda circumstance’ surely tells us that we should never see an idea - and whether its correct or incorrect - as being of more importance than living creatures. So, seeing that living sheep have good health and welfare and ensuring that they do not suffer should take precedence over any espousal of, and adherence to concept - no matter what the effects. 

The fundamental message in all this is the generality, arising in all sorts of situations, that living creatures must have precedence over concept.

Unsettling Incident

Last week, three lambs were taken from a farm field by activists from the campaign group Animal Rising (AR). Their aim was to rescue them. Their belief was that the lambs were destined to be sent to slaughter. The lambs were transported away in a vehicle. AR ‘said the animals were safe and with animal experts’ (Katy Lewis, BBC News, 25th May). AR’s action has attracted considerable attention from the media and others.

Clearly AR believed they had demonstrated care about the lambs, and care about lambs in general. What they also demonstrated was that they did not have much sheep knowledge.

In the ‘rescue’, while the lambs were removed from danger of likely slaughter, also they were being removed from their mother(s). AR says it did try to rescue a mother sheep but that ‘it wasn’t possible’.

The action would have caused stress to the lambs and mothers in separating them. 

It is not known whether the lambs were weaned or not - in pictures the lambs look quite large - so they may have been.

Sheep are prey animals. They feel safer in a group and, also, are social animals. Any other sheep in the field would have been stressed, not only the taken lambs and their mother(s).

The lambs were removed from familiar field and people.

There was disease spread potential through the action.

Reported are these reactions to the snatch:

‘Nicola Noble, of the National Sheep Association said

“The mothers have likely spent the last 24 hours scouring the field for their lambs, bleating endlessly with no hope of finding them.

These animals would no doubt have been terrified as they were chased and manhandled by complete strangers.

Being bundled into the back of a dark van would have been highly distressing for the sheep involved - not to mention the risk of potential disease contamination. The lambs, I imagine, would be endlessly bleating, hopelessly calling out for their mothers.” ’

‘Gareth Wyn Jones … a sheep farmer with over five decades of experience, said that the protesters were likely to have terrified the lambs. He added “These people are absolutely bonkers. Its distressing for these animals to be handled wrongly by amateur strangers. They must have chased the sheep around in order to catch them - stressing them out. And taking lambs away from their mothers is incredibly cruel.” ’

Sabrina Miller, Daily Mail, 26th May 2023.

And on the 28th May, the important movement dimension was spoken of by Fiona Parker and Sabrina Miller in The Mail on Sunday 

‘Movement of sheep across the country is strictly regulated to prevent the spread of diseases such as foot-and-mouth.’

Parker and Miller give this quote from Theresa Villiers, a former Environment Secretary

‘For good reason there are extensive rules in place to safeguard the welfare of livestock, especially when animals are transported.’

A spokesman for AR is reported by Parker and Miller as saying about the lambs on 27th May 

‘We have received confirmation from a qualified vet that all their vaccinations have either been delivered over the last couple of days or are scheduled as soon as reasonable. 

Until their full course of vaccinations is completed, they are being kept apart from other animals to remove any risk of disease transmission.’ 

So, the lambs may indeed have been saved from one likely bad outcome, but through the well-intentioned but not well-informed action of their ‘saviours’ the lambs and their family and fellows have been put to suffer.

Movement

There are occasions when sheep need to be moved - whether for their own benefit, or for humans’ purpose. The level of stress and discomfort to sheep from being moved varies according to type and circumstance of the movement.

Sheep will need to be taken from one pasture to another nearby, be rounded up for reasons, and be gathered. The activity will be done by person or persons, on foot, on quad bike or in other vehicle, and likely with assistance from sheepdog(s). Such movements are routine and familiar to sheep. If they are done by persons and sheepdogs known to them (and albeit that the latter, as dogs, represent predators), and if the move is effected with calmness and without the sheep being moved more quickly than their natural speed, stress to them will be small. 

If it is necessary for sheep to be moved on foot along roads, for the safety of all concerned, the activity requires to be done with as much speed as feasible; but the concomitant will be heightening of stress and discomfort for the sheep. 

Movement to places more than walking and droving distance away - to not-in-the-vicinity grazing, to a show, to a sale, to a slaughterhouse - requires sheep to be transported in a vehicle. There is a consequent increase in potential for sheep to suffer. Sheep being transported from their home base - and whether or not in their owner’s trailer - will most likely have comfort and familiarity of being with fellows from their flock. And if returning whence they came, they will have the same consolation on their return journey. 

Going onwards from elsewhere to somewhere new and unknown is fundamentally different, giving increased stress to the sheep. There is unfamiliarity and unknowingness. Their human handlers are unlikely to be known to the sheep; most probably sheep who are usual companions will be travelling with more and other sheep and who they do not know, or by contrast one sheep might be journeying on its own which would be very fear-inducing; the transport vehicle will be probably be unfamiliar, and may also be of an unfamiliar type. Further stress will occur if they are thrust, with a great lot of others, largely or wholly strangers, into a vehicle which is not only unknown but which is very large - a livestock transporter. The sheep’s journey may be much longer than they are used to. It may be indeed be so far as to be to another country, and perhaps involving not just being moved on a lorry but also being carried on a ship.

Discussing ‘Key live transport welfare issues’ in relation to farm animals, the RSPCA states: 

‘Long-distance live transport can cause farm animals a number of welfare problems, including:

Mental distress
- due to the unusual and potentially frightening sights, movements, noises, smells, unfamiliar animals and people they’ll encounter.

Injuries
- if they’re not handled appropriately and carefully during loading and unloading, and transported in well-designed, comfortable vehicles.

Hunger and dehydration
- if they’re not provided with appropriate food, water and plenty of rest breaks.

Heat stress
- if they’re transported for long periods in hot weather.

The risk of these problems happening increases with journey time.’

There is a rising scale of risk to sheep to suffer due to being moved: from probability of only suffering slightly from being moved on foot ‘around the farm’ and its hinterland; through likelihood to suffer to a degree from any transportation by any vehicle; and reaching to, almost inevitable, dreadful suffering when being transported long distance.

Yet, still, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which contains the proposal to prohibit export from Great Britain of livestock for slaughter etc, has not yet been passed to become law.

Gentleness

Gentleness is a fundamental characteristic of sheep. Sheep are prey animals, without the ability to be aggressive to predators. The most sheep can do in a situation of being chased or attacked is to run away, or else stand ground together. If an individual sheep wants to ‘put someone off’, to protect itself or its offspring, the best it can do is stamp a foot. Sheep do sometimes have one-to-one arguments using means of head-butting. And rams will attack, with their heads. Gentleness is, however, sheep’s general stance and nature.

What a mis-match there can be with how sheep are treated by others: humans with responsibility for care and attendance upon sheep; humans having charge of dogs - main sheep predators; other predators in the animal kingdom. Very sadly, gentleness is not the characteristic always on display by a farmer in their treatment of their sheep. Seemingly stemming from a way of thinking that their sheep are their lesser and their property to do with as they wish, can be ungentle handling as outcome. If dog-owners attached proper value to sheep, they would ensure that their dogs were under control near sheep, and they would ensure that their dogs did not have any opportunity to treat sheep ungently and to render the sheep great harm. The non-pet animal kingdom predators do not have constraint by humans for stopping them from showing ungentleness towards sheep.

How wonderful it would be if commensurate gentleness to that of sheep was displayed by others to them.

Sheep Worrying By Dogs

The context for sheep worrying by dogs is: sheep are prey animals; dogs’ natural instinct is to go after sheep. The arena for potential sheep worrying by dogs is: dogs out of control; sheep placed where dogs can see, and reach, them. Unless a dog is wild, or a stray, it is given care by a human and its actions and behaviour are in the governance of a human. A domesticated and farmed sheep is in human care, and its location is chosen by a human. So, responsibility for sheep worrying by dogs rests with humans.

Two surveys, one (released 7th February 2023) from NFU Mutual ‘of over 1,100 dog owners’ (the survey was commissioned by NFU Mutual, PetBuzz did the interviews) and another (2023) by the National Sheep Association (NSA) through which the NSA ‘has collected the experiences of farmers affected by sheep worrying’, portray the seriousness of the situation. The heading words of the NFU Mutual press release of 7th February which announced the findings of the NFU Mutual survey convey the essential issue, ‘Out-of-control dogs placing sheep at risk’. The press release says that ‘Almost half of dog owners believe their pet won’t harm livestock despite nearly two thirds saying their dog chases other animals’. It continues ‘Nearly four in ten dog owners admit their pet doesn’t always come back when called’. The NSA, saying the results of its 2023 survey, gives the finding that ‘In line with previous survey results, 70% of respondents had at least one sheep worrying incident in the last 12 months’. Among other findings were that ‘Despite farmers making steps to prevent sheep worrying, through signs, moving sheep and use of social media, it’s not having an impact’; and that ‘82% of survey respondents strongly agreed additional powers are necessary to act as a deterrent to irresponsible dog ownership’.

Sad, but important-to-be-read, are 17 case studies that the NSA provides; in these ‘farmers tell of their experiences of sheep worrying’ (https://www.nationalsheep.org.uk/for-the-public/culture/sheep-worrying/case-studies/).

In the matter of sheep worrying by dogs, humans taking responsibility seems to be the vital thing. Dogs belong to humans, and those humans need not to be in denial about what their dogs can and may or will do. The dogs need to be trained and kept under control. Sheep belong to humans, and those humans need to provide their sheep with the maximum protected environment.

Lambs and Lamb

The general public loves lambs.
Sheep farmers put every effort into seeing that lambs are born safely and that they then grow and flourish.
Yet much of the public eats lamb.
Yet sheep farmers sell a quantity of their lambs to be killed and eaten.
There seems to be dissonance here. 

It would appear that there are ‘two minds’. One mindset of valuing lambs and seeing them as precious living creatures.  Another mindset of not minding lambs being killed, early in life, for reason of human wants: sheep farmers’ want to obtain income from selling lambs to be food; a sector of the population’s wish to eat flesh and organs of lamb. 

Of course, a proportion of lambs are not sold by sheep farmers to be eaten. Those lambs left to grow up are being kept for breeding: to make next generations of sheep. These are the lucky ones. 

Lambs for breeding reach adulthood. Those lambs to be eaten have a life so foreshortened that they never get beyond infanthood to have the rest of experience of life - that of being adult. 

What forms the definition of a lamb is a sheep which has an age from day of birth to about a year. Slaughter of a lamb to be food can occur from 10 weeks to 12 months - or even stretching to 14 months, and with around 6 months being the most common time of slaughter.   

Let us ponder our ‘two mindedness’ about lambs. Let us consider about lambs and lamb, and what occurs in relation. And we might do so especially at this season of the year that is characterised by: young lambs abounding in fields: lamb being, for some humans, the chosen thing to eat at Eastertide. 

Concerning Live Export

Live export of animals is very concerning. By its nature, it is highly likely to give suffering to the animals. If, also, conditions are dire, procedure is poor, and there is bad treatment of the animals by humans, the circumstance is worse. Sheep are an animal group much exported live, and therefore they are much victim to the live export situation.

For concern, is that progress in the passage through the UK Parliament of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill seems to have stalled. The Bill proposes the banning of export from Britain of live animals for slaughter and fattening. Last week, the organisation Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) ‘took to the road’ in England with a Ban Live Exports Ad Van tour, going to the constituency offices of four Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Ministers and of the Prime Minister, to draw further attention to the need for ban on live exports and for expressing concern that the UK government appeared not to attach importance and priority to ending live export of animals.  

More encouraging is The Guardian 3rd March 2023 report (Calla Wahlquist and Australian Associated Press) that ‘The Australian government has begun the process of phasing out live sheep export’. But concerning is that ‘the National Farmers’ Federation is opposing ending live export and will not participate in consultation about the best way to phase out the trade.’ The RSPCA Australia chief executive has said that ‘the live sheep export trade had “deep, inherent and unfixable animal welfare issues” ’.  

CIWF gives this straightforward portrayal of live exports: ‘Live exports causes overcrowding, stress, exhaustion, dehydration, hunger and even death’.

Lambs and Mothers and Dairy

When lambs are born, their mothers - ewes - produce milk for them, and until the lambs are weaned. That is nature’s way. If the sheep’s owners want milk from the ewes to provide a product - milk, yogurt, or cheese - things can become rather different. There is human intervention and alteration to a natural course. At a chosen stage of ewe’s milk production, lambs are taken away from their mothers and their mother’s milk, and are fed on something else. An extreme system is that of a lamb being taken from its mother 24-48 hours after being born. There are those systems whereby a lamb can feed from its mother for a chosen, longer, period of time, and then be weaned from her milk so that milking can commence. Another system is for a lamb, after a short while of total nursing by their mother, to be with, and feed from, their mother for a portion of a 24-hour period. The lamb is not then with the mother for the remainder of the period, during which time the mother can be milked. 

In ‘Guide to Raising Dairy Sheep’, Berger, Mikolayunas and Thomas, writing from Wisconsin, explain three management systems for weaning lambs ‘so producers can milk the ewes.’. These systems (presumably in the United States) are Day-1 system, Day-30 system, and MIX system. As Susan Schoenian of Sheep 101 (sheep101.info) tells us - in regards management of dairy sheep (in the United States) - ‘Maximum milk yield is obtained when the lambs are removed from their dams within 24 hours of birth and raised on artificial milk replacer’. So, it would appear that the earlier the moment of separation of mother and lamb, the more milk will be available for allocation to form other - and commercial - products.

Recently on the BBC ‘Countryfile’ television programme a segment showed a visit to a farm which had sheep for diary. One of the farmers, when asked what the system for the lambs was, said ‘… these lambs will stay with their mum for 24 to 48 hours so that they get what’s called colostrum …. And then after that, we will take them away from their mums and we rear them all in a unit under heat lamps.’ She went on to say ‘I just try and give the lambs the best possible life we can.’ The segment attracted viewer criticism as examples, ‘Taking the lambs away from their mothers so early doesn’t sit well with me’ and ‘the poor lambs stay with their mums for only 24 hours and then taken away. What a s****y life’, and ‘Just can’t agree with the treatment of lambs on there just now. So very cruel for the mothers and wee lambs..’ (reported by Jill Robinson in The Sun, 13th February 2023). 

What we see here, overall, is human intervention into, and disruption of, a natural, needed and fulfilling process for a lamb and its mother. This is because humans’ wish to gain income from sheep dairy, so taking mothers’ milk produced for lambs’ growth, nutrition, and nurture. 

Giving Notice

The proportion of the year when lambs are born and still young is quite considerable. Sheep farmers choose when lambs are to be born on the basis of their aim for the lambs, and in relation to the likelihood of favourable weather. In the UK, lambs come into the world from mid-winter until late spring, with March-April as the peak; and so there can be presence of young ones during that period and into summer.

Lambs start out as small beings. They are innocent and unaware from whence danger or harm may come and unversed in how the world operates. Over time they will gain wisdom about what to fear and avoid. But for some period they will not know these things, and so will be very vulnerable.

It is lambs’ very innocence, along with their cuteness, what gives lambs such public appeal. But the love of lambs on the part of the public is, it appears, sometimes only up to a point. That point is when lambs halt or interrupt people from doing what they want to: driving their vehicle along a road in the manner and at the speed they wish; letting their dogs roam unconstrained. Speed on the road, and dogs on the loose are two main threats to lambs. Lambs going across a road may not grasp that they are upon a vehicle thoroughfare and so at risk of being knocked down; lambs in the countryside may not realise that the dog that they see is one of their predators. 

Three of the notices illustrated were seen at various places - roadside - in a military training area. One notice addresses countryside walkers; the other two are for vehicle-drivers who in these particular circumstances might feel the need to drive fast. These circumstances should not preclude, however, the top priority being lamb safety.

The sheep farming community and others who care about lambs’ safety have learned that strong notice needs to be displayed of lambs’ presence, to avoid harm to them due to uncaring human behaviour or other reasons.

More Shepherding

Traditional shepherding brings good care to sheep. The shepherd is with a flock of sheep all, or most of, the time, so sheep are much watched-over. Guard and warning are there against any predators. Sheep are led, with an aim to avoid encounter with dangers and for being kept safe and well. Sheep are taken to pastures that will be good for them and they are kept away from vegetation which would do them harm if they ate it. Any ailments or injuries which sheep may succumb to are noticed at once and so can be attended to swiftly, therefore a situation becoming worse is more likely to be avoided. 

In essence, through old-style shepherding, sheep are guided and managed, for their care, best interests, and welfare. The human brain is at use, supporting, adding to, complementing, and tailoring as necessary, what sheep know and have natural instinct to do anyway. The human-being is help, guide and augment. 

In parts of the world, traditional shepherding still occurs. But in many places nowadays, for economic or other reasons, shepherding - in the sense of the full- or most- time of a shepherd/sheep farmer being spent with a flock - no longer happens. Those with responsibility for sheep located outdoors regularly and conscientiously visit their sheep in their locale, to check them, tend to them, give them extra feed if necessary, but they do not remain with them. And the quad bike is a benefit to checking, in time-efficient way, how sheep are and are doing - it allows a person to go fast to sheep, to range far and wide speedily, to traverse terrain difficult for walking on foot. The quad bike visit, however, does not have the core feature of traditional shepherding, that of staying and being with the sheep. 

The optimum is to have shepherds with sheep all the time. In our modern times, being realistic and taking into account present-day circumstances and stringencies, the aim must be to have a method of shepherding which bears same beneficial characteristics as traditional shepherding. Fundamentals needing to be represented are: care, protection, watchfulness, vigilance. Compassion in World Farming says this: ‘Smaller numbers of sheep cared for by more shepherds allows proper supervision of the animals’ health and welfare.’

Expressive Ears

Sheep are quiet animals. They don’t make a lot of sound. They are not ‘loud mouths’. Lamb and mother will baa to each other; and sheep at a show, placed in pens alongside fellows, will likely baa. If sheep are suffering, it is not in their nature to voice it. But with their ears sheep are expressing things; this is by the positions the ears take. The question is ‘What is being expressed?’.

Expert, academic and professional study has delivered some suggestions as to what different ear positions are conveying. 

Dr Else Verbeek in the article ‘How Can You Tell Your Sheep Is Happy?’ (amazinganimalminds.com) describes how ‘researchers placed sheep in several different situations (negative and positive) and observed their ear postures’ and gives comment and summary.

‘The forward ear posture (sometimes the ears are also raised) has been observed when sheep are exposed to an unfamiliar situation ….This posture has also been observed when sheep were separated from their flock members, which is very stressful for sheep.

The forward ear posture could be a sign of increased attention when placed in a novel situation (or when looking at a strange camera), or it could be a sign of distress. 

Sheep generally have their ears neutral (perpendicular to the head-rump axis) or backward when they are standing calm and quietly, for example when ruminating. The proportion of time spent with their ears in the backward position increases even further during positive situations such as feeding and being voluntarily groomed by their handler. 

The neutral-backward posture therefore seems to be an indication of a calm state, and perhaps even of positive emotions. However, in a different study the backward ear posture was also observed during a situation when sheep could not control a grid moving over their feeding troughs that prevented them from eating. Sheep that were taught to remove the grid by crossing a photo beam with their muzzle did not show the backward ear posture as frequently.

The asymmetrical posture (one ear pointing back and the other ear pointing forward) has often been observed when sheep are distressed in situations such as separation from group members. The asymmetrical posture may also be an indication of frustration; ...

It has also been observed that sheep will change ear postures very frequently when they are stressed, while the ear postures change less often when in a more positive state such as feeding or ruminating. Sheep that constantly change their ear postures may therefore be in a negative state.’

Dr Verbeek says, ‘I have observed that the specific postures tend to differ between breeds. She then makes the important remark, ‘I also believe that the ear postures may be context dependent.’

In their article ‘Ear and tail postures as indicators of emotional valence in sheep’ (Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118 (2009), Reefmann et al reach this conclusion: ‘Negative emotional states appear to coincide with a high number of ear-posture changes, and positive emotional states with a high proportion of passive ear postures.’

The 2011 study by Boissy et al ‘Cognitive sciences to relate ear postures to emotions in sheep’ (Animal Welfare) finds that: ‘i) sheep point their ears backward when they face unfamiliar, unpleasant, and uncontrollable situations, hence likely to elicit fear; ii) they point their ears up when facing a similar negative situation but controllable, hence likely to elicit anger or at least some preparation of an active response; and iii) their ears are more often asymmetric in very sudden situations, likely to elicit surprise.’

The writer of the September 2019 article ‘Sheep Signals - what are they trying to tell you?’ (The George Farm Vets) reports this: 

‘Scientists have attempted to observe different ear positions on sheep and attribute them to particular emotions. The findings correlated with anecdotal evidence from farmers on how they would interpret a sheep’s demeanour - i.e. it matches up with what stockmen already knew.

• One ear forward one back tends to indicate surprise.

• Both ears back indicate fear or apprehension due to an uncontrolled situation.

• Ears down can indicate sickness.

• Horizontal position is neutral.’

Even the layperson, observing sheep, can absorb that sheep’s ears in their positions are expressing things and can have a fair instinct what is being ‘said’.

For those who care for sheep, looking closely at many aspects of the animal is vital. Most informative are its ears.

Nativity Scene

It is said that Jesus was born in a stable. It was possibly on a donkey that Jesus’ mother went to Bethlehem, town of Jesus’ birth. In the vicinity at the time when Jesus was born were shepherds watching over their flock; they went to visit the newborn (according to the Gospel of Luke). So, an animal presence at The Nativity is implied; but it is not known if any animals were present at Jesus’ birth. 

An early image of The Nativity, which is a carving on the lid of a sarcophagus, is of late fourth/early fifth century date. It shows Jesus, an ox, an ass, and two birds (no Mary and Joseph). Pope Benedict XVI, in his book (2012) Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives says that there is no mention in the Gospels of animals at the birth of Jesus. He opines that, that ox and donkey are referred to in other parts of the Bible, is probably why Christians included these animals in scenes of The Nativity. Maybe the birds were present for suggesting open sky, or for purposes of decoration. Later representations of The Nativity often include ox, donkey, and sometimes lambs and/or sheep. Sheep and lambs, as well as referencing the shepherds at Nativity time are also, it can be presumed, referencing Jesus’ Lamb of God attribution.

What is clear is that, over the time since the late fourth/early fifth century, in representations of The Nativity there has been an accrual of animals, both of type and in number. What seems to being represented is an impulse in humans of wanting animals to be shown as part of an important and fundamental event of life on earth. In showing animals present in portrayals of such a key occasion as The Nativity, humans are surely indicating their recognition and acceptance that animals are their fellows, having equal rights as theirs - both to be at The Nativity and in life.

Two examples of Advent calendars depicting The Nativity are below. The first shows - along with humans - a cow, two donkeys, a dove, an owl, two lambs, two rabbits, a deer fawn, two mice, a squirrel. The second (designed by Kong-Yew Wong) provides items to be built, comprising - along with humans, an angel, stable, crib, palm trees - a cow, a donkey, a dove on a hay bale, a sheep, a lamb, a goat, a camel, a cat, a dog, a chicken with an egg tray.

Nativity scenes with animals serve to emphasise that we should see and treat animals as of same value and importance as us.