WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository

4-1995

The New Ethic For Animals And The Industry

Bernard Rollin Colorado State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/moreifar

Part of the Agribusiness Commons, Animal Studies Commons, and the Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons

Recommended Citation Rollin, B. (1996). The new ethic for animals and the dairy industry. In ANNUAL MEETING-NATIONAL MASTITIS COUNCIL INCORPORATED (Vol. 35, pp. 4-18). NATIONAL MASTITIS COUNCIL, INC..

This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The New Ethic For Animals And The Dairy Industry

By Bernard E. Rollin Philosophy Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 303-491-6885

2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995 179 The New Ethic For Animals And The Dairy Industry

here is an unfortunate tendency on the part to simplistically categorize anyone causing animal of those who use animals to dismiss the new suffering as ‘cruel’. Hence, one can still find activists social concern with animal treatment as the picketing medical research institutions and carrying TirrationalT ravings of tofu-eating, ginseng-guzzling, signs which say “stop the cruelty” — as if researchers urban wimps and bunny-hugging extremists. “Ani- are on a par with people like the serial killers, many mal welfare is what we already do; if of whom did indeed torture animals in their youth. what they want us to do,” one animal said, Within the purview of this traditional ethic, any neatly summarizing the situation. However, what is suffering inflicted on animals for “acceptable,” “nor- of paramount importance is that “they” are not just mal” or “necessary” reasons such as economic ben- a band of radicals; the new ethic for animals has efit, food production, pursuit of scientific knowledge, taken root among society in general. As one cow- cures for disease, or, as one law puts it, otherwise boy in Kingsville, Texas put it to me: “Hell, Doc, if “ministering to the necessities of man,” was morally it were just the damn radicals, we could shoot the and legally invisible, shrouded by the all-encom- sons of bitches!” passing cloak of “necessity.” By and large, therefore, My first point, then, is to explain the new ethic the “normal” use of animals for human benefit in and its conceptual roots. Although society has paid research, agriculture, hunting, trapping, rodeo and formal attention to limiting human behavior regard- the like was not the concern of social moral thought ing animals for over 2,000 years, such attention was on animals. restricted to the prohibition of overt, intentional, will- During the past two decades society has begun to ful, extraordinary, malicious, or unnecessary cruelty; move beyond the overly simplistic ethic of cruelty deviant sadism; or outrageous neglect. For example, and kindness and to reach for a more adequate set not providing food or water. This ethic can be found of moral categories for guiding, assessing, and con- even in the Bible. For example, in the injunction not straining our treatment of other animals. Perhaps the to yoke the ox and the ass to a plow together, or in key insight behind this change is the realization that the restriction against muzzling the ox when he is the overwhelming majority of animal suffering at being used to mill grain. human hands is not the result of cruelty, but rather, This minimalistic, lowest common denominator these animals suffer because of normal animal use ethic was formally encapsulated in the anti-cruelty and socially acceptable motives. To prove this, I ask laws during the 19th century. These laws were as you to perform a thought experiment. Imagine a pie much designed to ferret out sadists and psychopaths chart representing the total amount of suffering that – who might begin with animals and, if left un- animals experience at human hands. Then ask your- checked, graduate to venting their twisted urges self, what percentage of that suffering is the result of upon human beings – as to protect the animals for intentional, sadistic, useless, deliberate infliction of themselves. pain or suffering on the animals for no purpose? Inter- This view of prohibiting animal cruelty can be estingly enough, all of my audiences, be they Mon- found in Catholic theology where, although animals tana rodeo people or San Francisco activists, say the do not in themselves count morally, animal cruelty same thing — well under 1%. Most animal suffering is forbidden for its potential consequences for peo- comes from reasonable human motives and goals. ple, since people who are cruel to animals will ‘grad- may be motivated by benevolence, high uate’ to abusing people. Interestingly enough, con- ideals and noble goals, yet far more animal suffering temporary research has buttressed this insight. The is occasioned by people acting in pursuit of these traditional humane or movement motives than by the actions of overt sadists. Con- was also caught up in the categories of kindness and finement agriculturalists may be motivated by the cruelty, and for this reason tended (and still tends) quest for efficiency, profit, productivity, low-cost food and other putatively acceptable goals, yet again, their

180 2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995 activities occasion animal suffering in orders of mag- This case neatly illustrates some important fea- nitude traditionally unimaginable. tures of what is happening in social thought: First of As we mentioned, the old ethic doesn’t apply to all, social thought is moving beyond cruelty. Sec- these normal, non-deviant uses of animals. This is ond, society is attempting to create new social rules true not only conceptually, but practically. The lim- and laws to protect animals. (The best illustration of itations of the ethic and the laws based in it were this point is the passage in 1985 of two new federal dramatically illustrated when the Animal Legal De- laws to protect laboratory animals after society real- fense Fund, a group of attorneys whose raison d’etre ized that the research community was not regulat- is raising the moral status of animals in society by ing itself.) Third, society is moving beyond concern use of the legal system, attempted to extend the about traditional cute and cuddly animals to con- scope of the anti-cruelty laws by a test case. As ani- cern about all animals who can suffer. mal advocates, they generate many fascinating law- Why is society suddenly concerned about the suits which test, press, and expose the limits of the 99% of animal suffering that is not the result of delib- legal system’s control over the treatment of animals. erate cruelty? One can speculate as to why the de- In 1985, they brought suit against the New York State mand for such an ethic has emerged only recently. Department of Environmental Conservation, that First, society has just lately focused its concern branch of New York State government charged with on disenfranchised human individuals and groups, administering the use of public lands. Specifically, such as women, Blacks, the handicapped, and the they charged the department with violating the anti- Third World. This same emphasis on moral obliga- cruelty laws by permitting trapping on public lands tion rather than patronizing benevolence toward the utilizing the steel-jawed trap. Since there are no laws powerless has led to a new look at animal treatment. regulating how often a trapper must check his trap Second, the urbanization of society makes the line, an injured animal could be trapped without companion animal, not the food animal, the para- food, water, medical care or euthanasia for long digm for animals in the social mind. periods of time which, according to the plaintiffs, Third, graphic media portrayal of animal exploita- constituted unnecessary cruelty. They were thus tion fuels social concern. As one reporter said to me, seeking an end to such trapping. “animals sell papers.” Given the laws, the judge made a very wise deci- Fourth, increased awareness of the magnitude of sion. He opined that the steel-jawed trap was in his animal exploitation made possible by technologies of view an unacceptable device. But given the way the scale inspires massive unease among citizens, who anti-cruelty laws have been written and interpreted, perhaps see themselves being rendered insignificant the actions of the agency in question did not consti- in the face of techniques, systems and machines that tute cruelty. After all, steel-jawed trapping is widely relentlessly reduce the individual — animal or human done as a means to achieving pest control, supply- — to a replaceable quantity. This sense of impotence ing fur, and providing a recreational pastime. Thus, in the face of forces one cannot even understand, let the activity of trapping is a legitimate one from a legal alone control, can fuel empathy with the animals. point of view, and does not fit either the intent, judi- Fifth, numerous rational voices have been raised cial history or statutory language of the anti-cruelty to spearhead the articulation of a new ethic for ani- laws. If one wishes to change the status of the steel- mals. Although concern for animals was tradition- jawed trap, the judge asserted, one should therefore ally seen (with much justice) as largely a matter of go not to the judiciary, but to the legislature. In other inchoate emotion, such a charge cannot be leveled words, one must change the laws, i.e. the social ethic. against the numerous philosophers and other intel- lectuals of today who eloquently and forcefully nudge the social mind in the direction of increasing moral awareness of our obligations to animals.

2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995 181 The New Ethic For Animals And The Dairy Industry

Sixth, and most important, the nature of animal This phenomenon is true for many reasons. In our use has changed significantly. The major use of ani- society, most of us are brought up and steeped in mals in society was and is, of course, agricultural. the same Judaeo-Christian, individualistic heritage. Before the mid-20th century, the essence of agricul- In addition, we live under the same set of laws, ture was husbandry. People who used animals put which encode much of that morality in ways that those animals into environments for which they guide and shape our theories and practices. Finally, were evolved and adapted and then augmented it is evident that we could not live and function their natural ability to cope with additional food, together if we did not implicitly share a very signif- shelter, protection from predators, etc. Producers did icant set of moral guidelines. This point is typically well if and only if animals did well. This is what Tem- unnoticed precisely because it is always there and ple Grandin has aptly called “the ancient contract” it works. What is noted and remembered are the sit- — or as ranchers say: “we take care of the animals uations in which the point does not work and about and they take care of us.” No producer could, for which we are greatly divided — issues like capital example, have attempted to raise 10,000 egg lay- punishment or abortion. If you X-ray very different ing chickens in one building — he would have had looking people, what you see is very similar; if you all his animals succumb to disease in weeks. X-ray a Hassidic rabbi and a Wyoming rancher In contrast, when animal husbandry departments morally, the same thing occurs. symbolically became animal science departments What aspect of our social ethic is being extended in the 1940s and 50s, industry replaced husbandry, to animals? In our democratic society, the consen- and the values of efficiency and productivity above sus social ethic effects a balance between individ- all else entered agricultural thinking and practice. uality and sociality, or more specifically, between Whereas traditional agriculture was about putting individual rights and social utility. Although most square pegs in square holes, round pegs in round social decisions and policies are made according to holes, and creating as little friction as possible while that which produces the greatest benefit for the doing so, ‘technological sanders’ such as antibiotics greatest number, this is constrained by respect for and vaccines allowed us to produce animals in envi- the individual. Our ethic builds fences around the ronments which didn’t suit their natures but were individual to protect the sanctity of his human convenient for us. For example, we could now raise nature, or telos, from being submerged by the gen- 10,000 chickens in one building. eral or majority welfare. Thus, we cannot silence an Similarly, the rise of significant amounts of re- unpopular speaker, or torture a terrorist to find out search and toxicity testing on animals in the mid- where he has planted a bomb, or beat a thief into 20th century also differs from the ancient contract revealing where he had hidden his ill-gotten gains. — we inflict disease on animals, wound, burn and These protective fences around the individuals are poison them for our benefit, with no benefit to them. rights; they guard fundamental aspects of the indi- These, then, are the reasons society seeks a new vidual even from the general good. Specifically, ethic for animals. What form is this emerging ethic these rights protect what is plausibly thought to be taking? Very simply, it asks that the consensus ethic essential to being a human — believing what you we all share in society be extended to include ani- wish, speaking as you wish, holding on to your prop- mals, as it was extended to include disenfranchised erty and privacy, not wanting to be tortured, and the humans. Despite an inherent tendency on our part like. These rights are fueled by the full force of law. to magnify and stress differences in the ethical posi- One major step toward extending the ethic to ani- tions among diverse persons in a society, the simi- mals, not difficult for the average person to take, is larities and agreements in ethical principles, intu- the realization that there exists no good reason for itions, practices and theories that obtain in society withholding the ethic from our treatment of animals. far outweigh the differences. In other words, there is no morally relevant differ-

182 2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995 Polls indicate that ence between humans and ani- 80% of the general indeed, that they live happy mals that can rationally justify not public believe ani- lives. The rights of animals, as assessing the treatment of animals determined by their natures, by the machinery of our consen- mals have rights. must constrain and check animal sus ethic for humans. Not only are Well over 90% of use. Convenience, utility, effi- there no morally relevant differ- ciency, productivity and expense ences, there are significant the 7,000-10,000 are not sufficient grounds for morally relevant similarities. Most ranchers I have overriding animals’ rights. This important, most people believe idea is tentatively encoded in that animals are conscious beings; addressed also some legislation, and it is affect- that what we do to them matters believe this. ing animal husbandry without to them; and that they are capa- being legislated; the extensive ble of a wide range of morally rel- efforts over the past decade to evant experiences — pain, fear, happiness, bore- create that respect animal natures give testi- dom, joy, sorrow and grief. In short, they experience mony to the spread of the new ethic. Furthermore, the full range of feelings that figure so prominently it appears that society is actually willing to give up in our moral concern for humans. certain animal uses and conveniences for the sake Not only does ordinary common sense accept as of the animals. The abandonment of the Canadian axiomatic the existence of consciousness in animals, seal hunt, the massive social rejection of furs, and it also takes for granted that animals have natures the rejection of cosmetic testing on animals by many (telos) — ”fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly,” as the companies, all without legislation, attest to the grow- song goes. Again, it is not difficult to get ordinary ing hold of the new ethic. people to admit that the central interests of animals’ Considering what we have discussed, it is patent natures should be protected from intrusion; even if that the dairy industry should undertake a proactive, we use animals, animals should live lives that fit their critical self-examination before society as a whole natures. It is not an accident that a major confine- is galvanized by some sensational event or expose ment chicken producer like Frank Perdue did not, to legislate in an ill-informed way. The Minneapolis- in his advertising, show the public how he really South St. Paul stockyard situation could well have raises chickens. Rather, he ran ads showing open had that effect. barnyard conditions which affirmed that he raised You must become proactive in the face of the ‘happy’ chickens. Ordinary people — even those emerging ethic, not reactive and defensive. You must who are not animal advocates — are appalled by try to separate the legitimate from illegitimate criti- in confinement, wild animals in tiny cisms directed at your activities, and correct the real cages, or primates in austere and deprived environ- deficiencies in an anticipatory way. It is far cheaper ments. Polls indicate that 80% of the general pub- and easier to deal with things yourself than to have lic believe animals have rights. Well over 90% of changes legislated by well-meaning but ignorant the 7,000-10,000 ranchers I have addressed also people who don’t know hay from straw or foals from believe this. Indeed, the president of the Colorado ponies. If legislation is necessary to correct abuse, it Cattlemen’s Association remarked some years ago is far better that it come from you than that it be at a closed seminar for agriculture leaders that, “If I forced upon you. Legislation coming out of a had to raise animals the way these veal people do, crescendo of public pressure is invariably flawed. I would get the hell out of the business.” If society can generate sufficient concern to pass In summary, society has gone beyond the anti- legislation that mandates the control of pain of rats cruelty ethic and has expressed concern that ani- and mice – the overwhelming majority of animal used mals used by humans not suffer at our hands, and in research – imagine what a groundswell of concern

2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995 183 The New Ethic For Animals And The Dairy Industry

could be evoked about dairy cows, the animal which which could harm the enviable position of dairy in has been called “mother of the human race.” the public mind. In either case, however, these prob- Let us examine the status and problems of the dairy lems must be laid to rest. As the animal industry often industry proper in the face of this new ethic, leaving remarks, in animal welfare perception is reality. aside the veal production issue for another discussion. Unfortunately, as Albright has forcefully pointed out, There is, historically, probably no area of tradi- “very little organized U.S. research on dairy animal tional, extensive, pre-industrial agriculture where welfare is under way. A library CRIS-USDA com- the contractual, “we take care of the animals, the puter search from 1978-1986 with such key words animals take care of us” ethic was more fully real- as dairy, , cow, calves, , veal, welfare, ized than in . What made dairy an humane, or well-being revealed four projects active especially good example of the contract between and pertinent to this discussion.” animal and man was the early realization that gen- tle, compassionate treatment of cattle leads to sig- 1. LARGE nificantly better yield. Science has recently con- One of the most dramatic changes in dairies, firmed what common sense knew for sure — that directly relevant to public perception of the indus- the variable that correlates most highly with milk try, is the rise of large intensive dairy operations, with production is the personality of the herdsman, and up to 3,000 cattle maintained in relatively small that women generally make the best stockmen. acreages. The small dairy farmer, with names for his Thus, while few people considered range cows, is a vanishing breed, as land costs, labor costs, cattle to be, as it were, members of the family, such and capital investment costs increase. The public was not the case with dairy cows. A colleague of tends, with some justification, to equate large oper- mine who grew up on an extensive dairy farm re- ations with lack of concern and attention to indi- calls that there was no bigger honor in his family vidual animals. On the other hand, proponents of than to be named after one of the favored cows. Stu- large, well-capitalized, intensive operations argue dents still tell me of their father’s crying after the that their operations, possessed of adequate money, death of a favorite cow. Since dairy cattle were raised and unlike small operations, not running on a shoe- for their products, not their meat, the element of string, are thus able to afford sufficient labor to look killing was not central to such farming, and animals after the cows, and actually provide for more inspec- often lived for a long time, even beyond what could tion of animals, since mechanization and automa- be justified by productivity alone. tion have removed much of the ‘scut’ work. Arave This view of dairying entered popular culture and, and Albright have argued that this is true for masti- in my view, still makes the general public favorably tis control. Supporting this view is the fact that, disposed towards milk production. The image of unlike sows, cows are relatively expensive and Bossy happily chewing her cud is a cliche, often de- highly productive (the modern cow can produce 10 picted in cartoons, and the Carnation Company has to 36,000 lbs. of milk per year), and thus careful indelibly stamped an entire generation or two with attention to the animal also benefits the producer. the pastoral picture of “contented cows.” Few mem- Albright has argued that mechanization is no sub- bers of the general public would agree with the stitute for stockmanship, a point echoed by others. activist statement I heard at an animal welfare con- Research into this question would be highly desir- ference — ”I can think of nothing more disgusting able. If it is true that large operations increase indi- than drinking the milk of another species.” Thus, the vidual attention to animals, such research could dairy industry would be wise to confirm this per- blunt negative public perceptions of large opera- ception of concern, not erode it. tions. If it is false, it would probably lead to revisions Yet there exist both genuine welfare issues and in industry practice and to better management. Such issues growing out of uneducated public perception research might compare small and large dairies in

184 2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995 terms of a variety of parameters related to welfare. 2. CALF WELFARE My key point is that the public must be convinced Some of the major potential hotspots for the dairy that, regardless of size of operation, concern for indi- industry come from the treatment of calves. Most vidual animals is still operative. female calves are used as replacements for dairy One area which feeds the idea of callousness at cows. Various practices associated with raising such large dairies, according to Temple Grandin, is the calves have been criticized on welfare grounds. One treatment of surplus calves. She informs me that such such issue is the very early separation of calf from calves often receive no colostrum and are shipped mother. Public perception suggests that such a sep- as young as one day old, before they can even aration is stressful to both animals, since cattle under ambulate properly. extensive conditions can suckle for some seven Behavioral Knowledge months. One of the most needed research areas in dairy cat- According to Albright, such separation is neces- tle is fundamental, basic research into the normal sary in order to expedite human-cow interaction — behavior patterns of modern dairy cattle under the cattle reared by dams or by nurse cows with no open conditions for which they were historically human involvement “are more difficult to calm selected, something like what was achieved at Edin- down, have greater flight distances,... circle contin- burgh by Stolba for domestic swine. This will help in uously in the holding pen, and are difficult to train judging the extent to which modern systems meet the to the milking routine.” In other words, the early animals’ natures. Unfortunately, there is no wild pop- stress of separation may increase the animals’ wel- ulation of Bos taurus analogous to the population of fare later when it becomes a dairy cow, since hu- European wild swine which Stolba used as a basis for mans have become surrogate mothers to the calves, ethological comparisons. The closest analogue may as Albright puts it. On the other hand, the average be maintained under range conditions, or person sees ‘removing a baby from its mother’ as dairy cattle still kept under traditional conditions. paradigmatically abusive, even cruel. At any rate, methodology must be devised, and It is obvious that the practice of separating calves research conducted, which will provide researchers at an early age from mothers should be further re- with a baseline ‘ethogram’ of natural behavior for searched, with regard to stress on both cow and calf, dairy cattle, which can then be used as a rational and ways of mitigating that stress should be exam- basis for assessing current systems. Such basic ined. Given that virtually all dairy farmers effect such research would be invaluable for welfare concerns. separation, the issue is of considerable significance. In addition, as Temple Grandin and others have A related question concerns the optimal time for shown, knowledge of fundamental behavior is use- removing calf from cow. This is currently disputed, ful for handling and management. most notably with regard to the provision of colos- As we have said earlier, behavior seems to be trum. Some dairy farmers leave the calf with the emerging as a focal point for welfare deliberations. mother for up to three days to allow the calf to At the same time, cattle show fewer stereotypies than suckle, to permit a mother-offspring relationship to other animals, but do show some. It has been sug- form, and to render the cow’s milk free of colostrum gested that cud-chewing provides a built-in form of and thus able to be sold. In contrast, others separate self-stimulation which allows the animal to cope the calf immediately and deliver the colostrum with austere environments, even as gum-chewing through a nipple-pail or bottle. Although it may seem has carried generations of students through boring more welfare-friendly to allow the cow and calf the lectures. Given our earlier explanation of the new longer period to bond, one can argue that separa- social ethic, such basic knowledge of cows’ behav- tion of the calf after three days, rather than at birth, ioral needs and natures is vital. causes greater trauma. According to Albright:

2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995 185 The New Ethic For Animals And The Dairy Industry

“When the calf is left with the cow three days appropriate resting behavior, social and activity or more, it is more difficult to separate the pair. behavior: Excessive bawling, fussing, and breaking down “The calf’s surroundings should provide plenty fences occur when maternal urges are then of stimuli to allow exploration and play.” denied, and the cow will fret excessively when Similarly, Fraser asserts that: separated from the calf, resulting in decreased “Individually reared calves cannot interact milk production.” much with one another and long periods of Again, this points towards the need for further social isolation lead to failure to develop nor- research in minimizing the stress of separation. It is mal social behavior.” also clear that close attention to separation of calf from Strangely enough, some research has shown that dam by the public could generate generate very bad calves individually raised in isolation, though indeed publicity for the industry, given the sanctity of the subject to a chronic stressor, nevertheless produce mother- offspring relationship for common sense. more milk as adults. This is open to many interpre- Research into raising calves on nurse cows, as is some- tations, ranging from the simple notion that this is a times done in the beef industry, should perhaps be clear case where individual productivity is not a undertaken. Dairy raised on nurse cows grow mark of welfare, to the complex notion suggested up less dangerous because still fearful of humans. by Albright that: Another welfare issue concerns the housing of “Isolation stress has an organizational effect on calves. In the U.S., it is most common to raise calves the ontogeny of the hypothalamo-hypophysial- for about three months in individual pens or hutches adrenal system of neonatal calves. The resul- to which the calf may be tethered. Although such tant stronger response to adult stressors could hutches are an improvement over crates, as animals increase milk production.” in fenced-in hutches can move freely, they are still In general, given the diversity of opinion cited offensive to many people who dislike the restricted above, as well as the strong tendency of the non- space and isolation from other animals. Despite the agricultural public to react negatively to isolation of fact that probably the major purpose of individual calves, research and public education should con- housing is disease prevention and ease of observing tinue in this area. Ideally, such research could gen- individuals, many dairymen will allow calves to erate group systems which do everything that isola- interact with calves in adjacent pens or hutches. Roy tion does, but allows the calves to enjoy social inter- has argued that calves are happier when they can action. According to Fraser: see one another, and most dairymen with whom I “With further refinement of management pro- have discussed this issue tend to agree. Outside cedures, [straw-based] systems are likely to [be- hutches reduce calf mortality over inside ones. come]... the normal method of calf housing.” Supporters of individual housing argue that dairy calves do better and develop normally if they are 3. HOUSING SYSTEMS kept individually until weaning, especially in out- The dairy industry in the U.S. employs a wide door pens. They cite higher survival rates, reduced variety of housing systems for dairy cattle, ranging disease and reduced tendency for persistent inter- from highly extensive, very traditional pasture sys- sucking among calves raised this way. Albright has tems, to stanchion or tie-stall housing, to freestall argued that the vice of intersucking which is preva- housing. There are positive and negative features rel- lent in Europe is a function of early group housing. evant to welfare associated with all systems, but A different view is expressed by Kilgour and Dal- some seem to be more problematic than others. ton, who favorably cite work by Sambraus to justify The system of greatest concern is probably tie- the importance of keeping calves in groups to ensure stalls, where the animals are tied in one place for

186 2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995 Recent Swedish legislation aimed at long periods of time. Tie-stalls tis. Again, research is needed are used almost exclusively in respecting the rights of to improve the systems. the Midwest and Northeast. animals following from One problem with all of the Although the apparent histori- their biological natures systems described above is cal motivation for tie-stalls has they fail to allow for grazing on been concern for the well- stressed the need for pasture, an activity for which being of the cattle as well as cattle to graze, and cattle have evolved and which, reduction of labor, with tie- if permitted, they will spend 8- stalls allowing for ease of indeed granted cattle the 10 hours a day doing! (Indeed, observation and inspection of right to graze, in perpetu- one can argue that the domes- the cows, the fact that the ani- ity. tication of cattle resulted pre- mals are unable to move and cisely from their ability to con- unable to engage in normal vert forage to food consumable behavior, notably grooming, makes tie-stalls a very by humans.) Recent Swedish legislation aimed at plausible and inevitable target for social concern. respecting the rights of animals following from their Whereas a range cow will walk over 6,000 meters biological natures stressed the need for cattle to a day, a cow in a tie-stall is clearly prevented from graze, and indeed granted cattle the right to graze, such exercise. In addition, the cow’s social nature in perpetuity. It is likely that public opinion in the is frustrated by such housing systems. Getting up U.S. similarly favors the grazing of cattle. Few pas- and lying down can also be a problem in poorly toral images are as powerful and pervasive as that designed stalls. Many tie-stall operators will let the of cows on pasture. cows out onto pasture or dry lots for one to five In any case, systems of housing which respect the hours a day when weather permits, but will keep animals’ natures should be sought. I do not think that them inside during bad weather. the new ethic will accept total confinement of cattle. Many dairy cattle, especially in the West, are kept in drylot conditions, in outdoor dirt pens in groups. 4. OTHER WELFARE PROBLEMS The cow’s social nature is expressed, and she can Castration, Dehorning and Branding – As in beef exercise. The problems with dry lots are similar to cattle, dehorning is a problem, as is castration with- problems of feedlots: lack of shade, lack of shelter out anesthesia of calves. Most operators do not from wind and snow, poor drainage, and general brand dairy cattle. lack of protection from climatic extremes. Some Tail-Docking – Over the last few years, docking farmers do provide shade and cooling by use of of tails in dairy cows has gained in popularity in the sprinklers. In general, cattle withstand cold stress U.S. and Canada. It is alleged that tail-docking re- better than heat stress. duces mastitis and somatic cell counts. This is often Freestalls have gained in popularity since their accomplished by elastrators. Allegedly, the proce- invention in 1960. In such systems, cows can be in dure is painless and keeps the cow from flinging their own bedded stalls and move freely into con- manure. Conversations with dairy specialists, dairy crete or earth yards where they receive food and veterinarians, and a physiologist have con- water. Poor flooring in these systems can lead to foot vinced me that there is absolutely no scientific basis and leg problems. Given a choice, dairy cows pre- for claims about the benefits of tail-docking. Prob- fer other flooring over concrete. Research is needed lems with mastitis are largely a function of hygiene, into flooring which reduces slippage and injury, and arising when animals are regularly down in unclean into more effective sanitizing systems for waste re- stalls. Removing the tail is another example of moval. Poor hygiene in stalls can also cause masti- attempting to deal with what is a problem of human

2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995 187 The New Ethic For Animals And The Dairy Industry

management by mutilating the animal — e.g. ‘devo- viduals being likely to become lame. A good deal calization’ of dogs, declawing of cats, and docking of lameness is a result of laminitis. Thus, we have a tails in piglets. In this situation, however, unlike the major tissue of researchable issues here, preferably others, the procedure will not even deal with the undertaken in tandem with research into improving problem. Indeed, removing the tail will cause addi- stall housing and controlling mastitis. Many of these tional suffering to the cow, since it can no longer problems can currently be handled with good hus- deal with flies! bandry and labor which is ‘cow smart’. The chal- Not only is docking the tail in fact not curative, lenge, as in all of modern agriculture, is to make the it can exacerbate the problem. The use of elastra- systems ‘idiot-proof’ in the context of larger and tors, contrary to the belief of some farmers, is quite larger operations. Research into better flooring, painful. Use of the elastrator can also cause infec- waste disposal, sanitation, and diet would help cre- tion, death and decreased milk production. In purely ate systems which are welfare-friendly, even when prudential risk-benefit terms, then, it is irrational to stockmanship is not perfect. choose to dock the tails, and since there is no poten- Downer Animals – The dairy industry is probably tial benefit from the procedure, the farmer is not the major source of downer animals, and has tended rationally warranted in taking any risk whatsoever. to block legislation against this horrendous practice. The same point, of course, holds regarding surgical While increasing numbers of dairymen are beginning docking of the tail. to realize that nothing is more erosive to the contented Indeed, there is reason to believe that docking the cow image of the dairy industry than transporting and tail is likely to increase the very problem that the then dragging a downer cow with a tractor or loader farmer is trying to eliminate, namely high somatic to the kill floor, other elements of the industry have cell counts. Kilgour and others have reported that turned a blind eye to the problem. Most dairy down- stress elevates SCCs in dairy cattle, and the use of ers are probably a result of calcium-phosphorus the elastrator and the subsequent pain and distress imbalance leading to milk-fever (hypocalcemia). that it causes the animal would certainly represent Animals that are down should be killed on the a stressor, as would any resultant infection. Further- farm and not transported. As one rancher put it, “we more, since stress results in immunosuppression, an should eat our mistakes.” The industry should proac- animal experiencing the docking procedure would tively develop or support legislation outlawing it. surely be more prone than ever to mastitis, since its Both state and federal initiatives are pending regard- immune system is being compromised. ing downer animals. Not acting decisively on the It appears to me that the non-invasive alternative downer issue is probably the greatest current threat of clipping the tail switch should work as well as to the dairy industry in terms of public perception, docking if there is anything to the theory implicat- and is also the most morally reprehensible practice. ing tails in mastitis. The issue should be definitely Future Technology – Future technology is mov- dealt with as a welfare concern. ing quickly into the dairy industry. All technologi- Mastitis and Lameness – According to Fraser and cal innovation can have major implications for the Broom, lameness and mastitis are the two major well-being of the cows. Consequently, all new inno- welfare problems in dairy cattle, and that there is a vation must be researched in terms of welfare impli- positive correlation between the incidence of both cations at the same time they are being researched diseases. Lameness has in turn been tied to high pro- for productivity and efficiency. tein and high concentrate diets. Lameness can be The rise of automated computerized milking reduced by hoof trimming and foot baths, and by should be carefully monitored. It has been argued attention to flooring, but much remains to be dis- that “this could allow the elimination of the milking covered about the conditions which lead to indi- parlor, because cows could at their leisure enter

188 2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995 Not acting decisively stalls to be milked automati- on the downer issue efficient production. We are cally. More frequent milking thus selecting for a 100- meter would increase production is probably the great- dash cow, forgetting that the and place less stress on the most profitable cow is the udder. An important benefit est current threat to marathon cow. Thus, many would be to allow the stock- the dairy industry in cows are culled before they man to spend more time reach their (theoretically high- observing and tending his ani- terms of public per- est) fifth lactation, during the mals and less time on routine ception, and is also third lactation. BST could aug- laborious work.” On the other ment this problem. Canadian hand, such an innovation the most morally rep- research showed that “BST could go wrong in many rehensible practice. treatment was associated with ways, lead to less attention to an increased rate pre- the animals, and further erode sumably as a result of increased the bond between humans and farm animals. stress associated with higher milk production.” The Genetic engineering can also cause problems. study showed that while BST increased milk pro- Recent unpublished work on double-muscling led duction by 14.4%, it increased culling rate by 45% to unexplained weakness and paralysis in calves. According to this argument, this dramatic rise in Other animals (pigs and chickens) engineered for the culling rate as a result of the injection of BST is increased size have shown a variety of problems, further confirmation that we have, through natural notably foot and leg problems, since foot and leg selection, bred cows to produce a level of BST strength did not increase in proportion to the addi- which jeopardizes their chances of surviving until tional size. Cloned calves have been extremely large their most productive years. Injecting additional BST at birth, leading to birthing difficulties, and have makes matters worse. The use of BST definitely shown other problems, including alleged ‘stupidity’. increases the incidence of In all genetic engineering programs, the resultant ani- perhaps because the animals are giving more milk mals should be no worse off than their parent stock, and the lactation ducts are more patent and thus and should be carefully monitored. Productivity more susceptible to bacterial invasion. Social accep- should not be pushed at the expense of welfare. tance of BST has of course been highly equivocal. The use of BST and other similar growth hormone Widespread public knowledge of the deleterious innovations developed through biotechnology consequences of its use to the animals could seri- should also be monitored for effect on cattle well- ously harm the industry’s stature. being. It has been argued that the use of BST will Conclusion amplify a problem already prevalent in the dairy The dairy industry, by and large, has not been the industry as a result of . In eval- target of negative publicity, except as the source of uating A.I. Sires, a major criterion employed is the downer cattle, as we discussed earlier. The prob- first lactation production of the bull’s daughters. lems we have discussed should be aggressively dealt Unfortunately, a bull may be bred to thousands of with in order to preserve the industry’s enviable posi- cows before an evaluation can be made of the lon- tion in the public mind and, more importantly, to gevity of his daughters. The result is strong selection preserve the fundamental decency hitherto built into pressure for high first lactation production and weak our ancient contract with these animals. selection pressure for longevity, a major factor in

2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995 189 The New Ethic For Animals And The Dairy Industry

notes

190 2ND WESTERN LARGE HERD DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE • LAS VEGAS, NV • APRIL 6-8, 1995