Page 282 - The Welfare of Cattle

ethICaL IMPeratIVe of TELOS 259

industry’s reliance on early cow–calf separation will cease any time in the near future. Thus, it may
be beneficial to examine whether compromises between ethics, animal welfare, and practicality
may exist with regard to the calf’s management once separated from the cow. Many farmers report
a preference for individual calf housing due to management ease and perceived health benefits for
the calf, and the majority of dairy operations in the United States report housing pre-weaning heifer
calves individually (37.9% in outside hutches or pens, with an additional 25.1% in indoor hutches
or pens; USDA, 2016a). While in nature the neonate calf would indeed be separated from other
herd mates in those first days of life, she would eventually integrate into the herd and form strong,
lifelong bonds with her dam and with other cows and calves (Kilgour and Dalton, 1984; Vitale
et al., 1986).
In contrast, the eventual transition from individual to group housing, occurring much later and
more abruptly on most dairy farms, is neither natural nor optimal for heifer success in the herd
later in life. Here again science may help bridge the gap between preferences for more natural calf
housing and practical constraints for dairy farmers. Rather than housing calves individually from
birth to weaning, farmers might instead consider housing calves in small groups of 6–8 or even in
pairs after a few days to a week after birth. Doing so has been shown to confer abundant benefits to
calves, including improved cognitive development, reduced weaning distress, and improved post-
weaning growth performance (Jensen et al., 1997; Faerevik et al., 2006; De Paula Vieira et al., 2010,
2012a, b; Gaillard et al., 2014; Pempek et al., 2016).
Calffeeding protocols. We may seek further resolution of ethical concerns pertaining to
permitting calves to fulfill their telos in the management of calf nutrition and feeding protocols.
While calves would naturally choose to suckle frequently and decrease the number of bouts with
age, the majority of dairy farms (88.9%; USDA, 2016a) feed calves twice per day (an additional
6.8% report thrice-per-day feeding) at approximately 10% body weight (BW) or approximately half
what they would consume voluntarily (Appleby et al., 2001). Not surprisingly perhaps, calves raised
on such farms often struggle with gaining weight during their first few days of life (Hammon et al.,
2002) and vocalize out of hunger when deprived of adequate amounts of milk (Thomas et al., 2001).
Feeding more milk, on the other hand, can improve BW gain and feed conversion in calves (Diaz
et al., 2001; Shamay et al., 2005) and reduce hunger signals (De Paula Vieira et al., 2008) without
compromising calf health (e.g., no increase in scouring, Appleby et al., 2001; De Paula Vieira et al.,
2008).
Rethinking milk delivery is also in order; calves are often bucket-fed, depriving them of the
opportunity to consume nutrition through suckling. Preventing calves from suckling, a behavior that
they are highly motivated to perform, is thought to contribute to undesirable behaviors, such as cross-
sucking or nonnutritive sucking of the bodies of other calves (Jensen, 2003; de Passillé and Rushen,
2006). Shifting to nipple/teat delivery systems, which allow calves to express their natural suckling
behavior, can improve their physiology, promote relaxation (de Passillé et al., 1993; Hänninen et al.,
2008) and essentially eliminate cross-sucking behavior (de Passillé and Rushen, 2006).

routine alterations

A number of dairy management procedures involve the removal or alteration of a body part (the
horns or the tail) in an attempt to improve some aspect of animal management. Society may object
to these practices on the basis that modifying an animal to fit its environment is a misguided and
deeply unethical approach that violates the animal’s bodily integrity and so its telos (Bovenkerk
et al., 2002; Gavrell-Ortiz, 2004). Rather, stakeholders external to the dairy industry (and many
within it) may instead wish farmers to amend the environment to fit the animal’s nature. Indeed,
altering the environments in which cows are housed and refining the technologies, equipment and
management practices used in dairy production may be a far more palatable means of improving
welfare than altering the animals themselves.