Page 281 - The Welfare of Cattle

258 the WeLfare of CattLe

However, to depict dairying as a wholly pastoral pursuit becomes increasingly risky as
members of society learn about current dairy production practices, and inevitably begin to
question the integrity of dairy industry communications and marketing efforts. In California,
for example, dairy farms are much more likely to house cattle in open dirt lots with not a
blade of green in sight. It is of course important to clarify that this contrast does not in itself
necessarily or even directly impact the welfare of dairy cattle, as high welfare (at least from
the perspective of most animal welfare scientists) is absolutely achievable in a range of dairy
housing systems. However, that conflict can and does negatively impact public trust and confi-
dence when lay people must question why farmers house cattle in ways that look dramatically
different from the ways in which advertising has led consumers to believe dairy cattle are
housed. Indeed, California Milk’s advertising has since transitioned to broader depictions of
the types of dairy farms that supply their milk.

her herd to calve, hide her calf for the first few weeks of life, nurse frequently for months and wean
gradually (Kilgour and Dalton, 1984; Vitale et al., 1986; Lidfors et al., 1994; Langbein and Raasch,
2000). Research indicates that modern cows housed indoors retain the motivation to separate and
hide before calving (Proudfoot et al., 2014a, b). In contrast, typical practice on the vast majority of
farms is to separate the calf from the cow within a few hours to a day or two after birth, after which
the cow rejoins the production cycle and the calf is housed separately, fed milk artificially and
weaned to solid feed some time between 6 and 8 weeks of age (von Keyserlingk and Weary, 2007).
There are a number of issues to tease out here which may provoke ethical concern on the basis
of conflicts with the telos of the dairy calf and cow. First, the act of separation itself, which does
indeed elicit strong objection among nondairy farming persons when they learn about the practice,
based on concerns about the unnaturalness of the practice and subsequent negative impacts on both
cow and calf (Boogaard et al., 2010; Ventura et al., 2013, 2015). Farmers separate the cow and calf
for various reasons that are scientifically supported. For one, it is thought that the cow–calf bond
does not develop immediately after birth (Hall, 2002), though the bond likely develops rapidly and
strengthens over time (as reviewed in Flower and Weary, 2003). It is therefore thought that separating
calves from cows immediately may prevent the greater distress that could come from separating
later after the bond is allowed to develop (Weary and Chua, 2000; Flower and Weary, 2001, 2003).
For some farmers, early separation is also justified to minimize disease transmission between
mother and offspring (Ridge et al., 2005), reduce exposure to environmental pathogens (Windsor
and Whittington, 2009), and to help facilitate individual care, including monitoring and managing
colostrum intake (Vasseur et al., 2010). However, recent research suggests that there are also certain
advantages conferred by allowing the calf to remain with the dam for a period of time, including
increased learning and social flexibility for those calves, which may improve their success in the herd
later in life (Costa et al., 2014; Gaillard et al., 2014; Meagher et al., 2014). Calves permitted contact
with their dams for 2–12 weeks not only had greater social activity, they also demonstrated fewer
undesirable or abnormal oral behaviors, such as cross-sucking (Flower and Weary, 2001; Fröberg and
Lidfors, 2009; Wagner et al., 2015). As for health effects of separation on the calf, the science again is
mixed. Calves remaining with the dam to nurse have been shown to have improved digestive health
and overall lower morbidity and mortality (Selman et al., 1970; Metz and Metz, 1986; Metz, 1987;
Weary and Chua, 2000; Flower and Weary, 2001; EFSA, 2006). Yet other studies have indicated
that calves left with their dams may be at greater risk of failed passive transfer, diarrhea, and Johne’s
disease (Wesselink et al., 1999; Svensson et al., 2003; Marcé et al., 2011).
Calf housing. While researchers are beginning to re-examine whether rearing the calf with the
dam may be possible on dairy farms (see Johnsen et al., 2016 for a review), it is unlikely that the