Page 260 - The Welfare of Cattle

sustaInabILItY and anIMaL WeLfare 237

of conditions or the infrastructure resources of steel, concrete, etc., required to build these types of
structures. All of these considerations and more would have to be considered to allow for a “fair”
comparison of the myriad methods that can and are used to raise livestock.
Needless to say, the reasons mentioned above and many more make it particularly difficult to
describe what practices truly reduce environmental impact, increase sustainability and ultimately
what the impacts these practices ultimately have upon the welfare of the animals produced for
human consumption. While it is my personal opinion that we are trying to reach a target that we
cannot see or describe adequately, there are some practices that have been fairly well accepted as
being true for optimizing resource use and general preservation of the natural resources available
to us for producing livestock based products. Most of these practices would be focused on optimiz-
ing the efficiency of nutrient use, thus minimizing loss of these nutrients into the environment where
they may become concentrated and cause undesirable environmental effects. It is critical to note
that the emphasis here is on “optimizing,” not maximizing efficiency. It is possible to sometimes
increase the efficiency, but as in most biological systems, there are some strains that may limit lon-
gevity and thus lead to a greater inefficiency over the long term. For example, if a producer could
double the milk production from a cow using the same or similar amounts of resources, that would
obviously be beneficial. However, if doubling the milk production of a cow required the producer
to replace that cow after only one or two lactations with another cow that would require at least
2 years of development to become a suitable replacement, it becomes readily apparent that it is the
best interest of sustainable use of resources to spread the resources used in the cows development
(i.e., before they can give milk) over as many lactations possible. Therefore, in the current example
it may be most beneficial to sacrifice the doubling of milk production in the current lactation so that
the cow may be kept around for many more lactations.
One of the niche production areas that has received a large amount of attention for the potential
to provide a form of sustainable food production is the Organic sector. On the cover of the Organic
Trade Organization webpage (2018), it is stated that the program will “protect the environment.” In
addition, in their most recent survey of U.S. Families Organic Attitudes and Behaviors study (OTO,
2018), “concerns about the effects of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics” were listed as the top
reasons for persons to support organic production. It is also a prominent topic that there is a strong
animal welfare component associated with the production of Organic livestock. It is highlighted
by OTO (2018) that “(The OTO) are standing up on behalf of the entire organic sector to protect
organic integrity, advance animal welfare, and demand the government keep up with the industry
and the consumer in setting organic standards.” In a lawsuit against the USDA, the OTO also states
that “The viability of the organic market rests on consumer trust in the USDA Organic seal, and
trust that the organic seal represents a meaningful differentiation from other agricultural practices.”
To further examine this issue, one needs to consider what it is that differentiates the production of
livestock under Organic standards from that of conventional livestock production standards. The
standards are readily available via the website of the Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR, 2018). For
the most part, the regulations are focused on aspects of animal care that include housing require-
ments and restriction of the use of many pharmaceutical agents that may be used in commercial
livestock operations.
First we will consider the issue of housing, wherein the regulations clearly dictate a required
amount of indoor and outdoor space required for differing species. These spatial requirements
may also include “access” to areas with greater space or that may be outside for livestock that are
primarily grown indoors or in pens as opposed to animals that predominantly spend time in larger
enclosures such as pastures. The standard also indicates that “Year-round access for all animals to
the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean water for drinking, and direct sunlight,
suitable to the species, its stage of life, the climate, and the environment.” There are numerous
caveats to this requirement in the standard to allow the producer to limit or suspend access as
determined to avoid inclement weather, provide particular care for stage of life, etc. This is in