Page 133 - The Welfare of Cattle

110 the WeLfare of CattLe

that farm animals should have the freedom “to stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves
and stretch their limbs.” Approximately 30 years later The Brambell Report was used as the basis
for developing the Five Freedoms that state that all animals must have: (1) freedom from thirst and
hunger, (2) freedom from discomfort, (3) freedom from pain, injury, and disease, (4) freedom to
express normal behavior and, (5) freedom from fear and distress (FAWC, 1992).
Since then, the topic of farm animal welfare has continued to gain considerable traction in the
academic community, and in North America, particularly over the last 30 years (von Keyserlingk
and Weary, 2017). This increased interest is due almost entirely to the increased demand for science-
based solutions that address concerns raised by stakeholders, including the public. However, despite
the wealth of knowledge generated by scientists on ways to improve welfare of farm animals, and
that various food producer and retail groups have developed animal-welfare standards for US farms
(Mench, 2008), there is evidence that many welfare issues continue to plague the food animal indus-
tries. For example, despite lameness in dairy cattle production systems being the focus of numerous
scientific studies, including the identification of known risk factors (Chapinal et al., 2013; Chapinal
et al., 2014a), it continues to be one of the global dairy industry’s greatest welfare challenges (Cook,
2017). Equally worrisome is the fact that despite it being well-documented that routine management
practices such as dehorning (Stafford and Mellor, 2011), castration (Thuer et al., 2007, Marti et al.,
2010, Becker et al., 2012), and branding (Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al., 1998) are painful and that
pain mitigation strategies exist, only a modest number of producers implement best management
practices that address the issue of pain. For example, in 2014 only 30% of dairy farmers used pain
control while dehorning calves (USDA, 2017). On a positive note, this is almost double that reported
in the previous National Animal Health Monitoring survey completed in 2007 (USDA, 2009). The
beef industry has taken a somewhat different approach to dehorning with a large portion of the
producers using polled genetics as a means to replace the need for this painful procedure (Long and
Gregory, 1978; Hoeschele, 1990), with more than 85% of beef calves born without horns in 2007, a
fivefold increase since 1992 (USDA, 2008a). It is also well established that management practices
such as abrupt weaning (Haley et al., 2005) combined with the stresses of transport (Flint et al.,
2014) and comingling (Step et al., 2008) negatively impact the welfare of beef calves. Despite the
well-known adverse effects of abrupt weaning, 50% of beef cow–calf operations sold calves imme-
diately at weaning and only 40% vaccinated calves prior to sale (USDA, 2008).
The status of farm animal welfare has been further challenged over the last 20 years by the
use of undercover videos by special interest groups. Video footage depicts excessive cruelty such
as workers dragging, kicking, and electrically shocking dairy cattle unable to walk (i.e., Hallmark-
Westland Meat Packing Company in Chino, California, 2008; Miller, 2014; Paul, 2015) but also
routine practices that the public find abhorrent, such as tail docking and dehorning (Schecter and
Ross, 2010). Given these controversies, it is not surprising that public trust in the care of farm ani-
mals is eroding (Robbins et al., 2016).
In the case of animal welfare, the values of farmers differ from those of the general public, with
farmers tending to emphasis different dimensions of animal welfare than the public (Te Velde et al.,
2002; Lassen et al., 2006; Vanhonacker et al., 2008; Bergstra et al., 2015). For instance, farmers and
their frequently trusted advisor, the veterinarian, have historically emphasized biological function-
ing and health as primary determinants of animal welfare (Ventura et al., 2013; Weary et al., 2016).
In contrast, the public’s perspective places emphasis on the ability of an animal to live a reasonably
natural life (Lassen et al., 2006; Prickett et al., 2010; Verbeke et al., 2010; Cardoso et al., 2016;
see review by Clark et al., 2016). The fact that the farmer and general public’s values are different
could be one reason why practices persist on farms that fail to resonate with societal values and can
result in distrust.
Given the growing discussions about what type of life farm animals lead it is not surprising that
questions arise on how animals on a particular farm are cared for—in essence, do they have good
welfare? The answer to this question is not simple. Additional questions that arise include: who sets