Page 279 - The Welfare of Cattle

256 the WeLfare of CattLe

warmer months; Legrand et al., 2009). They will also work harder to access pasture during the eve-
ning hours than they do during the day (Charlton et al., 2013).
Incorporating these types of research results into the design and operations of new dairying
facilities may help to resolve some of the ethical conflicts that arise around the naturalness (or lack
thereof) of dairy farming, while maintaining and even improving cow productivity. From the cow’s
perspective, the ideal (and thus, most ethical, if we are to emphasize telos) solution might be to
allow her to choose to flow between an indoor environment and an outdoor pasture. However, logis-
tical and practical constraints may prevent individual farms from being able to provide choice-based
access to pasture. These constraints include, but are certainly not limited to: farmers’ access to
and/or ownership of suitable land for grazing, environmental considerations pertaining to land use,
weather-related conflicts, predator control, and persistent economic barriers. Future compromises
between practical limitations and fulfillment of natural living for cows with relation to outdoor
access may yet exist, however. For example, within the last few years researchers have begun to
explore ways to provide alternative outdoor access to allow cattle a greater range of movement and
socialization in ways that are feasible for farmers (e.g., small adjoining sand or deep-bedded bark
mulch packs; Smid et al. 2018).
Postural and behavioral restriction. A recent review (Barkema et al., 2015) indicated that zero
grazing is not the only contentious housing system used in the dairy industry. It is likely that as
research continues to explore stakeholder concerns about dairying, those external to the livestock
industries will increasingly voice objections to basic restrictions to the cows’ opportunities for
movement and social interaction (Boogaard et al., 2011; Popescu et al., 2013), rendering systems
like tie stalls or stanchions, wherein cattle are tethered for long periods of time without the ability
to turn around or engage in some important social behaviors, questionable from a social sustain-
ability perspective. Furthermore, there is evidence that at least some stakeholders working within
or for the dairy industry also object to such housing on the basis that it impedes a cow’s nature,
see, for example, the comments of an interviewed animal scientist that “the tie stall, as opposed
to the free stall, is an issue…where the ability of the animal to move within that space is really
hindered…I’m talking about the ability to make postural changes, to explore her environment
and to choose to move away from other cattle…” (Ventura et al., 2015). Reiterating this concern,
a veterinarian in that same study remarked, “It’s about respect [for] the nature of the animal!”
(Ventura et al., 2015).
As with many other contentious practices in dairying, the science on cattle health in tethered
systems (vs. other indoor systems like the free stall) is ambiguous. For instance, in some studies,
cattle in tie stalls seem to exhibit poorer health and worse reproductive outcomes than those kept
in free stalls (e.g., higher rates of most diseases and lower reproductive performance on Norwegian
farms [Valde et al., 1997; Simensen et al., 2010]). However, lameness incidences have been reported
to be lower in tie stall systems than in free stalls (on Wisconsin and Ontario farms [Cook, 2003;
Cramer et al., 2009] and again in Norway [Sogstad et al., 2005]). Others have found little to no
evidence of acute or chronic stress in cattle housed in tie stalls (Veissier et al., 2008). It may well
be that welfare is not necessarily poor in tie stall systems per se, but it is important to note that
researchers who reach this conclusion also specify that in order to mitigate the potential health and
welfare impacts of prolonged tethering, cattle housed in tie stalls should also be allowed exercise
opportunities in paddocks or pastures (Veissier et al., 2008; Popescu et al. 2013).

Calf housing and Management

Separation from the cow and individual housing. Few issues seem to provoke as much public ire
or better illustrate the divergence in views on animal welfare between industry and lay stakeholders
than that of early cow–calf separation. Here again, contradictory scientific findings complicate
matters. First, it is important to note that in nature, a cow will typically separate herself from