Page 141 - The Welfare of Cattle

118 the WeLfare of CattLe

more discussion). Equally important is that these types of audits should encourage new conversa-
tions between the farmer and the professional team they work with, including their veterinarian, the
nutritionist, and other consultants working with the farmers. In this way, benchmarking can provide
trusted advisors to the farmers a new way to get their clients interested in specific issues, and to
help their clients develop tailored solutions to the problems (von Keyserlingk et al., 2012). Thus,
benchmarking may also provide advisors a means of developing their practices beyond the current
services provided (Atkinson et al., 2017).
The issue of formally addressing professionalism through the adoption of a professional model
has also received some interest within the academic literature. Fraser (2014) states that given the
recent debates surrounding the need for increased food production, animal production systems will
be hopefully seen as an important service to society. He also states that the issue of certification
of farms could then be incorporated into a professional model that could aid in maintaining public
trust. A professional model of animal agriculture would serve the industry, the animals, and con-
sumers in fostering an environment where farmers are accustomed to being held accountable to an
agreed upon standard. As long as the standards were set to drive improvement, accountability is
likely to improve animal welfare while gaining consumer trust.
The promotion of a culture of self-governance (i.e., professionalism) within the industry (Fraser,
2014) has other advantages when it used as a vehicle to provide farmers with “confidential” access
to critical feedback that allows them access to information that can help identify areas of con-
cern. There are tremendous opportunities for rigorous confidential first-party audits that align with
animal-welfare standards that mirror third party audits as a method for preparing farmers to meet
standards (Weary and von Keyserlingk, 2017). This confidential assessment of the farms’ animal
care and management practices allows for dialogue between the farmer and the trusted party of
stakeholders (i.e., veterinarians).

FUtUre ChaLLeNGeS

Clearly expectations of what it means for an animal to have a good life have changed over
time and will no doubt continue to change (Weary et al., 2016; von Keyserlingk and Weary, 2017).
Historically farmers focused primarily on providing assurances that animals are in good health and
producing well (von Keyserlingk et al., 2009). Not surprisingly, many animal-welfare audits already
require information on the prevalence of lameness and injuries, and more work will be needed to
curb these maladies on farm as many farms in the US and Canada continue to be plagued with
high rates of lameness (von Keyserlingk et al., 2012; Cook et al., 2017). Disease rates during the
transition period in dairy cattle and in the feedlot are also worrisome and will no doubt be included
in future audits. The traditional practice of underfeeding the milk fed calf, the fact that individual
housing during the milk feeding period remains the norm in many countries, and the fate of the bull
calf will no doubt be areas where standards will be discussed and debated in the future.
There is also a growing body of evidence that for most lay citizens animal welfare is more than
just good health and production. People want assurances that the animal is feeling well, free of pain,
and able to experience pleasure (Fraser et al., 1997). Animal-welfare standards that ensure pain mit-
igation when doing routine painful procedures will likely not be optional for all programs in both
North American beef and dairy cattle production systems in the very near future. This is already a
reality for many European countries, for example, in Sweden, Denmark, and The Netherlands pain
relief is legally required when disbudding/dehorning regardless of age (ALCASDE, 2009; Robbins
et al., 2015). We see broad adoption of standards that require pain mitigation, for all painful proce-
dures including castration and branding in both beef and dairy cattle in the near future.
The issue of naturalness is extremely important for the public (see Cardoso et al., 2016)
and will likely cause the cattle industries the most difficulty (Weary et al., 2016). Given the