Page 284 - The Welfare of Cattle

ethICaL IMPeratIVe of TELOS 261

As the practice became more widespread, farmers began to cite numerous other reasons for docking,
namely improved milk hygiene, udder cleanliness and health, and enhanced milker comfort, health,
and hygiene (Tucker et al., 2001; Croney and Anthony, 2011). Consequently, by 2007, docking was
reportedly performed by 48% of US dairy farms (USDA, 2007; Barkema et al., 2015).
Despite the claimed benefits, tail docking raises significant ethical and scientific issues, espe-
cially related to infringements on the telos of the cow. Tails by design provide functional benefits
to cows. They facilitate social communication and fly deterrence, both of which are impaired when
they are docked (Croney and Anthony, 2011). Not surprisingly, the obvious alteration of cows is
viewed quite negatively in public perception studies (Widmar et al., 2017). Weary et al. (2011)
noted that survey respondents objected to tail docking in part because they viewed the practice
as “unnatural” or because it interfered with the “natural” behavior of the cow (and her ability to
disperse flies). Here, the question of violating the integrity of the cow appears to be a central,
underlying concern.
Tail docking is also unjustified based on the prevailing scientific evidence. The nature and
extent of pain caused by docking raises immediate concern, although most studies to date suggest
that cows may experience only minor levels of acute pain upon docking (Tom et al, 2002). There is still
debate about whether docking causes chronic pain (Eicher et al., 2006; von Keyserlingk et al., 2009).
Additionally, the stated rationales for docking do not withstand scientific scrutiny. For example, no
differences are observed in milk production or milk hygiene in docked cows; docked cows have,
however, been observed to have higher fly loads likely due to the loss of a tail switch that assists with
ridding themselves of flies (Ladewig and Matthews, 1992; Mathews et al., 1995; Eicher et al., 2001;
Tucker et al., 2001; Eicher and Dailey, 2002; Schreiner and Ruegg, 2002; von Keyserlingk
et al., 2009). The primary benefit appears to be worker comfort, which can be accommodated by
management of the cow’s environment as well as by trimming the hairy switch of the tail, further
weakening the argument for the alteration. Moreover, unlike some of the other welfare issues previ-
ously discussed, tail docking can be easily and economically abandoned, as no infrastructural or
financial investment is needed—farmers can simply elect to simply stop the practice immediately.
In light of the current state of scientific evidence, the National Milk Producers Federation set
January 1, 2017 as the date by which farmers participating in the industry’s FARM Animal Care
Program to phase out routine tail docking. Additionally, the AVMA opposes routine tail docking of
cattle, noting that “current scientific literature indicates that routine tail docking provides no benefit
to the animal, and that tail docking can lead to distress during fly seasons,” (AVMA, 2017). Thus,
the issue of tail docking may come to represent a critical success story in terms of the dairy industry
integrating both scientific and ethical consensus into standard management procedures.
In summary, the dairy industry has an opportunity to address a major source of ethical concern
by taking steps to avoid procedures that cause cattle pain by exploring viable, cost- effective alter-
natives or through making management decisions that better incorporate pain control. Given
that a major challenge relative to achieving the latter goal is the lack of approved analgesics for
cattle in the United States (Coetzee, 2013b), it is critical for the industries to invest further in
research that may lead to development of approved analgesics and best practice protocols for pain
management in dairy cows, while revisiting the necessity and implications of painful alterations
of animals.

Longevity

As animal agriculture strives to meet global food demands, the impetus for increased produc-
tion has correspondingly grown. Predictably, the production demands placed on livestock animals
have subsequently increased. Nowhere is this paradigm better exemplified than in contemporary
dairy production. Over the past 40 years, milk yield per cow has more than doubled (Oltenacu and
Broom, 2010). However, the dramatic increase in productivity has potentially come at a cost to