Page 142 - The Welfare of Cattle

CattLe haVe a reasonabLY Good LIfe 119

known challenges associated with restriction of movement associated with hens housed in cages
(Mench et al., 2008) and pigs in gestation stalls (Sato et al., 2017), we see tie stall housing for
dairy cattle and tethering of any kind (e.g., veal calves, the milk fed calf) becoming problematic
in the future (Spooner et al., 2014; von Keyserlingk and Weary, 2017). The public also places
great emphasis on pasture access (Cardoso et al., 2016) which will require dairy producers and
beef producers raising cattle in strict confinement and possibly feedlot operators to address this
issue in the near future. One particularly contentious issue will be cow—calf separation in dairy
(Ventura et al., 2015).

FINaL thOUGhtS

In order to achieve a good life for farm animals care givers of animals will need to continually
reflect critically on current practices. Research has and will continue to play a key role in iden-
tifying best practices that result in improved welfare and ways and means of facilitating timely
adoption of these best practices must become a focus by the members of the cattle industries. The
development of standards and audits that reflect societal and industry concerns based on under-
standing of farm animal-welfare requirements and recommended practices will also be crucial.
These standards reflecting the latest scientific evidence will ideally be developed and executed in
a transparent manner—key if the industries are to be sustainable in maintaining public trust now
and in the future. To maintain public trust third-party audits are needed. We also see need for addi-
tional efforts to focus on clearly showing that audits result in improved animal welfare. It is here
where rigorous first- and second-party audits done to ensure that farms meet the standards on a
daily basis will play an important role in preparing farmers to succeed when third-party audits are
completed. Lastly, throughout this dynamic process, efforts must focus on producer engagement,
such as benchmarking, to improve the adoption of implementing proven welfare solutions on farm.

aCKNOWLeDGMeNtS

We thank Katie Koralesky (UBC Animal Welfare Program) for her comments on an earlier
version of this manuscript. MvK is supported by supported by Canada’s Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Industrial Research Chair Program with contributions
from the Dairy Farmers of Canada (Ottawa, ON, Canada), British Columbia Dairy Association
(Burnaby, BC Canada), Westgen Endowment Fund (Milner, BC, Canada), Intervet Canada
Corporation (Kirkland, QC, Canada), Novus International Inc. (Oakville, ON, Canada), Zoetis
(Kirkland, QC, Canada), BC Cattle Industry Development Fund (Kamloops, BC, Canada), Alberta
Milk (Edmonton, AB, Canada), Valacta (St. Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada), and CanWest DHI
(Guelph, ON, Canada).

reFereNCeS

ALCASDE. 2009. Report on dehorning practices across EU member states. www.vuzv.sk/DB-Welfare/telata/
calves_alcasde_D-2-1-1.pdf. Accessed October 8, 2017.
Anderson, K., and R. McAdam. 2004. A critique of benchmarking and performance measurement: lead or
lag? Benchmarking: An International Journal 11:1463–1483. doi:10.1108/14635770410557708.
Animal Welfare Act. 1999. Parliamentary counsel office of New Zealand 1999. www.legislation.govt.nz/act/
public/1999/0142/56.0/DLM49664.html. Accessed October 8, 2017.
Animal Welfare Institute (AWI). 2016. A consumer’s guide to food labels and animal welfare. https:// awionline.
org/content/consumers-guide-food-labels-and-animal-welfare. Accessed October 7, 2017.