Page 139 - The Welfare of Cattle

116 the WeLfare of CattLe

table 11.2 the Case of tail Docking in Dairy Cattle in North america—1992 to 2017
1992 tail docking of dairy cattle introduced into north america on the basis that it would improve
cleanliness and udder health at the american association of bovine Practitioners annual
meeting (Johnson, 1992)
2001–2002 three studies show no benefits to tail docking (eicher et al., 2001; tucker et al., 2001;
schreiner and ruegg, 2002)
2004 american Veterinary Medical association (aVMa) officially announces that they oppose tail
docking of cattle
2005 Canadian Veterinary Medical association (CVMa) officially announces that they oppose tail
docking of cattle
2007 forty percent of cows on us dairy farms had docked tails (usda, 2007)
2006–2008 two more studies show no benefit to tail docking (eicher et al., 2006; fulwider et al., 2008)
2009 California bans tail docking in cattle (California Penal Code, section 597n)
2009 Canada’s code of practice for the care and handling of dairy cattle (nfaCC, 2009; p. 34)
specifies that “dairy cattle must not be tail docked unless medically necessary”
2010 evidence arises that farms that dock tails actually have dirtier cows than do farms that keep
tails intact (Lombard et al, 2010)
2010 american association of bovine Practitioners (aabP) officially announces that it opposes the
routine tail docking of cattle
2011 study published indicating that the most stakeholders, including farmers and the public, do
not support tail docking in dairy cattle (Weary et al., 2011)
2011 national Mastitis Council (nMC) announces that it opposes the routine tail docking of dairy
cattle
a
2015 saputo announces animal Welfare Policy –– specifically stating that farms within their supply
chain will no longer be allowed to tail dock cows
2016 national Milk Producers federation announces that they will no longer allow tail docking in
farms participating in the farM program effective January 1, 2017
2017 thirty-three percent of cows on us dairy farms had docked tails when surveyed in 2014
(usda, 2017)
a www.saputo.com/-/media/ecosystem/divisions/Corporate-services/sites/saputo-Com/saputo-Com-documents/
our-Promise/responsible-sourcing/animal-Care/2017_saputo_animal-Welfare-Policy_english_fInaL.
ashx?la=en.

husbandry can have tremendous reputational and economical consequences. Animal-welfare audits
or requirements motivated primarily by risk mitigation have historically focused on specific prac-
tices that have been the target of criticism from special interest groups. Gestation crates and battery
cages are the two most familiar examples with numerous companies now publicly stating that they
are transitioning away from these types of housing systems (Sullivan et al., 2017) (see also von
Keyserlingk and Hötzel, 2015 for additional discussion). From the perspective of this chapter, there
is merit in reviewing the topic of tail docking in dairy cattle in North America. This is an inter-
esting example given that despite a suite of scientific studies on this issue all failing to show any
benefits, the Canadian and US dairy industries differed in how they managed this practice. Unlike
the DFC who announced in 2009 that this practice was no longer acceptable (DFC-NFACC, 2009),
dairy farmers in the US were reluctant to give up this practice, which resulted in other stakeholders,
including a major milk processor, driving change (Table 11.2). This provides a clear example where
a market mandate is required to overcome industry reluctance to change.
Given the discussion around the need, and arguably the desire, to provide assurance about farm
animal welfare some industries have created labels depicting some level of animal-welfare standard
(AWI, 2016). Examples included the UEP certified (eggs) (Mench et al., 2011), and Red Tractor in
the United Kingdom (2017). The impetuses for these types of certification programs are no doubt
driven by the industry to show that they have set standards concerning animal care and those farms
within their sector follow these. The reasons for introducing these are likely also to some degree
motivated by an aspect of risk mitigation.