Animal Welfare and the Dairy Industry
M. W. FOX
ABSTRACT
Although the dairy cow plays an
integral role in the ecology of sound food
production, its welfare, as well as ec-
onomic efficiencies and soundness of
food production under modern industrial-
scale systems of management, are ques-
tioned. Major areas of welfare concern are
identified and reforms and ethical guide-
lines suggested.
INTRODUCTION
The cow, sacred to many cultures and
probably to some of our own ancestors also, is
a creature toward which we all have a great
debt (22). Its castrated male offspring, as oxen,
provide most of the draft power for agricultural
and other purposes in much of the world, and
its manure is a valuable fertilizer, fuel, and
building material. As a ruminant, it converts
forages (and by-products of the food industry
in more developed nations), which have no
nutritive primary product, to milk. As such, the
cow is an integral part of ecologically sound
food production, although its grazing habits
and water requirements are maladaptive in
many arid and semi-arid regions, contributing
to overgrazing, destruction of habitat, and soil
erosion. Improvements of genetic adaptability
of more productive crossbreeds have done
much to reduce this problem in these regions
by reducing herd size, but in many regions,
cattle are still the wrong species in the wrong
place (15).
In the US overgrazing is more a problem of
beef than dairy production. However, the use
of grains to boost productivity of dairy cattle is
an ecologically and economically questionable
practice, especially in view of the overproduction
of milk, the surplus of which is a burden on the
taxpayer. The composition of milk also raises
consumer concerns, notably the excess fat and
Received October 15, 1982.
1983 J Dairy Sci 66:2221-2225 2221
The Institute for the Study of Animal Problems
2100 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
low protein percentage of some breeds. Also,
antibiotic residues and other chemicals that
may be ingested as feed contaminants and are
secreted in the milk, such as aflatoxins and
pesticides, in addition to accidental con-
taminants of feed and forage (as by poly-
chlorinated biphenols, radiation fall-out), ne-
cessitate rigorous controls and costly regulations.
W E L F A R E ISSUES
There are limits to economies of scale (5,
17), and average returns to management may he
higher for medium-sized dairy herds (65 to 70
head); lowered productivity per cow is a
common reason for lower returns in larger (100
plus) herds (4). An important element may be
the amount and quality of individual care and
attention each cow receives. Large feedlot-style
dairies in California (where some herds are
2,000 to 4,000 head) raise welfare questions,
especially the "diluted" attention by stock-
persons who must oversee several hundred
cows, and the lack of provision of shade and
m u d d y or dusty lots that are not conducive to
udder or foot health (12). The average pro-
ductive life of such cows is little more than 4 to
5 yr (personal observations). There m a y be a
national trend toward larger dairy herds and
" f a c t o r y " scale operations with reduced labor
and reduced care of individual cows. Maximizing
the biological efficiency of each animal is not
cost effective for all systems: a welfare deficit is
incurred.
The attitude and personality of those in
charge of stock are significant variables in
productivity of the cow (23), and generally
hired labor do not do as well as owner-operators
and family members. The same holds true for
calf mortality (14); tender loving care and
understanding are an integral part of good
husbandry. Livestock husbandry proficiency
training and certification (as in the United
Kingdom) would be worth instigating, especially
for large herd operations owned by absentee
stockholders.
2222
Maximum biological efficiency of the cow
depends upon a close human bond, lack of fear,
zero flight distance, and selection for docility,
these being key elements in highly productive
cows (2, 13). It is because of this combination
of factors that the welfare of dairy cows,
especially in small and medium-sized, owner-
operated herds, is generally far superior to that
of other farm animal species (12). Ruminants
are probably more adaptable to confinement
and to a relatively monotonous environment
than other species because, as Albright (2) has
pointed out, rumination is a more inner-directed
activity, which may, to some extent, placate
the need for outer-directed activity such as
exploration, foraging, and rooting as with
swine.
Although close correlation between temper-
ament, careful individual attention, and high
lactation have done much to ensure the welfare
of dairy cows, there still remains the major
problem of a welfare deficit in larger herds
when economic efficiencies necessitate re-
duction of quality and quantity of individual
attention. In addition, there are other welfare
issues the dairy industry must address:
1. Transportation of injured and sick cows
to slaughter often entails additional stress and
suffering. Animals not fit enough for transporta-
tion should be killed on the farm.
2. Dehorning of calves should include a local
anesthetic, and caustic chemicals that can cause
eye damage and skin infection should be
prohibited.
3. Prolonged stanchion-tying of cows,
especially in winter months, should be dis-
continued in favor of the free-stall open-barn
system, which has done much to improve the
welfare of cows (3). Alternatively, where
tie-stalls are used, the cows could be allowed
out into a yard or field for 3 to 5 h per day,
weather permitting.
4. Separation of calf from cow is a traumatic
event. The sooner it is done, the less attachment
has developed, thus reducing the psychological
stress of separation (16). It is advisable to allow
the cow to groom the calf after it has taken
colostrum, because this stimulation increases
colostrum uptake (24).
5. Care of unwanted bull calves needs
particular attention. Not all dairy farmers
provide them with colostrum. Ideally, if they
are intended for veal production, they should
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 66, No. 10, 1983
FOX
be transported directly to the veal producer,
thus avoiding the stress and disease exposure at
auctions. Prior to transportation they should be
fed colostrum to provide some disease pro-
tection. Closer integration between the dairy
and veal industries is needed.
6. Rearing dairy calves in separate straw-
bedded loose boxes outdoors for the first 8 wk
or so of life is conducive to their overall health
and well-being, provided they have frequent
human contact. Health advantages may outweigh
the costs (to the animal) of social deprivation.
However, under good management (sanitation
and herd health care maintenance), raising
calves in group-pens (at 6 wk of age or after
weaning, possibly with access to a nurse-cow) is
a viable and probably more humane alternative,
especially on farms raising their own calves.
7. Some US producers raise their veal calves
in straw-bedded or wood-slatted group-pens
(20). Recognizing the greater potential for
disease problems in an " o p e n " herd of veal
calves of random origin, there are legitimate
health reasons for raising them initially in
separate crates. But as with dairy calves, veal
calves must be given the freedom for greater
social interaction and physical activity by being
transferred to group-pens, (ideally straw-bedded)
ater 6 to 8 wk of age. Continued confinement
in small crates in which they cannot walk, turn
around, or interact freely with others is ethically
questionable.
8. Excellent reviews and research on such
welfare related topics as design and numbers of
free-stalls per group of cows, floor material and
surface, feeder-space allowances, social dom-
inance and density, thermoregulation and
ventilation, milking machine design and pres-
sures, lay-out of holding pens and chutes to and
from the milking parlor, diet especially during
gestation and lactation, have been published.
These studies not only reflect the close cor-
relation between welfare and maximizing
individual productivity but also demonstrate
what a significant contribution dairy scientists
can make to enhancing herd health, well-being,
and productivity (12).
9. Production-related diseases, especially
metabolic disorders such as ketosis, are of
economic concern. The nutritional requirements
of high-yielding cows may be met inadequately,
and further research is needed. It seems that, in
the quest to maximize productivity at the
 OUR INDUSTRY TODAY
lowest possible costs, dairy cows may be
pushed beyond their physical limits into a
borderline stress condition that increases
their susceptibility to diseases and metabolic
disorders and requirements for certain essential
nutrients such as niacin. McCullough (18)
writes:
In recent years, levels of milk production have
been pushed higher and higher. This desirable
change has been accompanied by an increasing
incidence of metabolic problems such as ketosis,
displaced abomasums, fat cows, and ulcerated
rumens. This complex of events is related to
the level of grain fed and the feeding programs
involved. Feeding heavy grain rations during lac-
tation and the dry period usually accompanies
a high incidence of these problems. (p. 84).
In conclusion, the dairy cow is and wilt
continue to be a vital and integral part of
ecologically sound, regenerative agricultural
production. Many of the welfare issues raised in
this paper can be rectified through education
and by the establishment of voluntary codes
and dairy farm accreditation. A "humane
grade" on a carton of milk or packet of cheese
or butter would appeal to many consumers, and
many dairy farms would qualify for such a
grade today. But if dairy farms are to become
fewer and larger, a trend that may develop ~n
eastern and midwestern states along the lines of
the large dairy "factories" on the west coast,
along with vertical integration and corporate
(nonfarm) ownership and monopoly, it may be
accurate to predict that the welfare of the dairy
cow and of the small and mid-sized independent
family farmer will be in jeopardy. Farmers'
cooperatives are a viable alternative.
Political and economic aspects aside, there
are many welfare related issues that necessitate
further research and funding, especially in
applied animal behavior, stress evaluation, and
objective welfare assessment. Science cannot
give all the answers, however, nor should
politics and economics alone dictate what
research should be done and what scientific
findings should be applied to improve the
health and well-being of farm animals and the
maximization of their biological efficiency on
an individual basis. There are ethical questions
and constraints also, because dairy cows and
other farm animals are not simply biomachines.
They are sentient and to some degree sapient;
2223
and they have social, emotional, and behavioral
needs [which may be interpreted philosophically
as their rights (11, 19, 21)]. This places a moral
burden upon us, as their stewards, to ensure
their treatment and the conditions under which
they are raised are optimal for their overall
physical and psychological well-being, regardless
of economic rationalizations to the contrary.
An interdisciplinary science of animal
welfare is evolving (8, '12), which ultimately
may give us the tools to assess objectively
subjective states in animals and to facilitate the
design of environments most conducive to their
physical and emotional well-being. Dow (9), for
example, states:
Usinga strictly scientific approach, our tendency
to attribute feelings to animals cannot be
proven. Nevertheless, there are arguments that
lead to the so-called 'analogy conclusion.' It
seems unlikely that there should be no similarity
between animals and man when the behavioral
and physiological organization of so many
animals is so like that of man. (p. 10).
Because there are limitations in scientific
empiricism as an objective tool to measure
subjective states of animals, ethical guidelines
are necessary to offset these limitations of the
scientific method and present scientific knowl-
edge.
It is ethically imperative to endeavor to
strike an equitable balance between economic
and other human needs and our moral duty
to meet animals' basic needs and not subject
them to social and environmental-experiential
privations and restrictions that are beyond
their abilities to adapt. That is, their welfare is
dependent upon the degree to which they are
able to adapt without stress or suffering to the
environments that are provided for them.
Husbandry conditions also should allow the
animal some opportunity to develop, explore,
and experience its telos to some degree, its
intrinsic nature of "cowness" (12).
The following basic guidelines should be
adopted to govern the management of animals
under human stewardship. No husbandry
system should deny the environmental re-
quirements of the animal's basic behavioral
needs, a tenet clearly expressed in West Ger-
many's animal protection act. Those needs, as
designated by Carpenter (7), should include the
following minimal environmental requirements:
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 66, No. 10, 1983
2224
1) freedom to perform natural physical move-
ment; 2) association with other animals, where
appropriate, of their own kind; 3) facilities for
comfort-activities, e.g., rest, sleep, and b o d y
care; 4) provision of food and water to maintain
full health; 5) ability to perform daily routines
of natural activities;6) opportunity for activities
of exploration and play, especially for young
animals; and 7) satisfaction of minimal spatial
and territorial requirements, including a visual
field and "personal" space. (From these re-
quirements, a number of systems are unac-
ceptable, notably small, barren cages for
laboratory primates, cats, and dogs; caging
of wild animals in many research facilities,
municipal and roadside zoos, and fur farms; and
several factory farming systems such as sow
stalls, hen batteries, and veal crates.)
Deviations from those principles sould be
avoided as far as possible, but where such
deviations are absolutely unavoidable, efforts
should be made to compensate the animal
environmentally. Falconer (10) states:
The improvements that have been made by
selection in these (domesticated breeds) have
clearly been accompanied by a reduction
of fitness for llfe under natural conditions, and
only the fact that domesticated animals and
plants do not live under natural conditions has
allowed these improvements to be made.
Artificial breeding then makes a population
more profitable but less fit. (p. 179).
Although "fitness" may be improved through
environmental and genetic engineering, the
revolutionary new age of biotechnology with its
computer enhanced, scientifically sanctified
control, creation, and exploitation of life is not
without potentially iatrogenic consequences.
Without a radical change in values, we may, in
attempting further control over life, become
captive of our own controls, enslaved by the
narrowness of our world view and desires.
I anticipate that future applied research on
farm animal husbandry and veterinary medicine
will verify the thesis that I have presented in
detail elsewhere (12), which is not simply that
intensive husbandry methods are inhumane but
rather that they are pathogenic. A major
contributing factor to the pathogenic nature of
intensive, confinement husbandry systems may
be what Ader and others (1) term immuno-
suppressive psychosocial stress. Overcrowding
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 66, No. 10, 1983
FOX
and emotional distress are two recognized
etiological factors. This problem may be
exacerbated further by agrichemical con-
taminants of animals' feed, notably by pes-
ticides, many of which are known now to be
immunosuppressive (6) and even by routine,
preventive vaccinations (12). This phenom-
enological correlation between emotional dis-
tress, stress, and disease resistance has been
investigated extensively under controlled lab-
oratory conditions (1) and goes far beyond
Selye's relatively simplistic and mechanistic
model of stress, which is accepted so widely
today. This new model may prove to be as
relevant to the health and welfare of domes-
ticated animals as to our own health and
well-being also.
" F a c t o r y " farming has become a highly
controversial issue, I believe, because it evokes
many metaphors: the subjugation of life
to the industrial system; the subordination of
individuals' rights and a u t o n o m y to goals of
efficiency and productivity; the maintenance
and propagation of life under wholly unnatural
conditions; the dependence of life upon drugs,
vaccines, and technology.
The social relevance of these metaphors may
be unconscious in the minds of critics of
factory farming. The controversy over the
rightness or wrongness of factory farming is
highly political and socially relevant, literally
and metaphorically. Perhaps there is some
wisdom, some atavistic survival instinct, in the
abhorrence that many have not only for the
conditions under which farm animals are kept
but for the human condition also. Defenders of
this animal industry are quick to judge all
criticisms as anthropomorphic, utopian idealism,
and any suggestions of alternative husbandry
systems are dismissed as a return to primitive,
uneconomical methods; and consumers, after
all, need and expect a cheap and plentiful
supply of farm animal produce. Surely neither
the critics nor the supporters of factory farming
are totally wrong in their perceptions. Animals
living at high density, like us, need vaccines and
drugs to control and treat disease. We believe
and hope that animals can adapt to these
conditions and we to our condition, and science
and technology certainly can help in this
regard.
But as there are limits to subordination of
 OUR INDUSTRY TODAY
h u m a n rights for t h e g o o d o f society, so limits
m u s t be placed u p o n s u b j u g a t i o n o f animals in
the service o f society. It is, t h e r e f o r e , f o r an
i n f o r m e d s o c i e t y to d e c i d e w h e r e t h e ethical
limits s h o u l d be set, e c o n o m i c s and public
b e n e f i t s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g . The basis for o u r
decisions m u s t n o t be w e i g h e d b y e c o n o m i c
interests or science a l o n e b u t by e t h i c s also,
because our e x p l o i t a t i o n o f animals incurs an
e n o r m o u s d e b t , a m o r a l obligation t o m a x i m i z e
t h e i r well-being in r e t u r n for t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n
to our o w n .
REFERENCES
1 Ader, R., ed. 1981. Psychoneuroimmunology.
Academic Press, New York, NY.
2 Albright, J. L. 1978. The behavior and management
of high yield dairy cows. Page 31 in Proc. BOCM,
Silcock Conf., London, U.K.
3 Albright, J. L., and C. W. Alliston. 1971. Effects of
varying the environment upon performance of
dairy cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 32:566.
4 Benson, G. A., and S. R. Sutter, 1981. Page 4 in
The new farm. North Carolina State Univ. Ext.
Survey. (Abstr.)
5 Britton, D. K., and B. Hill. 1975. Size and efficiency
of farming. Saxon House, Farnborough, England.
6 Caren, L. D. 1981. Environmental pollutants:
effects on the immune system of resistance to
infectious disease. Bioscience 31 : 582.
7 Carpenter, E. 1980. Animals and ethics. WatMns,
London.
8 Dawkins, M. W. 1980. Animal suffering: The
Science of animal welfare. Chapman and Hall,
London.
9 Dow, J.K.D. 1980. Health and welfare problems of
current animal husbandry systems. Page 10 in An
A. D. Allen report to the Animal Health Trust,
Kennett. Newmarket, U.K.
2225
10 Flaconer, D. S. 1960. Page 179 in Introduction of
quantitative genetics. Ontario Ronald Press,
Richmond Hill, Ontario.
11 Fox, M. W. 1980. Returning to eden: Animal rights
and human responsibility. Viking, NY.
12 Fox, M. W. 1983. Farm animals: Husbandry,
behavior and veterinary care: Viewpoints of a
critic. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD.
13 Hart, B. L. 1980. Behavior and milk production.
Bovine Pract. 1 : 8.
14 Hartman, D. A., R. W. Everett, S. T. Slack, and R.
G. Warner. 1974. Calf mortality. J. Dairy Sci.
57:576.
15 Hopcraft, D. 1975. Productivity comparisons
between Thompson's gazelle and cattle and their
relation to the ecosystem in Kenya. Ph.D. diss.
Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.
16 Hudson, S. J., and M. M. MuUord. 1977. Investiga-
tions of maternal bonding in dairy cattle. Appl.
Anim. Ethol. 3:271.
17 Kramer, H. 1980. Three farms: Marketing milk,
meat, and money from American soil. Little,
Brown & Co., Boston, MA.
18 McCullough, M. E. 1974. Optimum rations for
feeding dairy cows. World Rev. Anim. Prod. 10:84.
19 Morris, R. K., and M. W. Fox, ed. 1978. On the
fifth day: Animal rights and human ethics. Acro-
polis, Washington, DC.
20 Mosner, M. 1982. No need to be boxed in: group
pens and grain for veal calves. Int. J. Stud. Anim.
Prob. 3:207.
21 Rollin, B. 1981. Animal rights and human morality.
Prometheus, Buffalo, NY.
22 Schwabe, C. 1978. The holy cow -- provider or
parasite? A problem for humanists. South. Hu-
manities Rev. 13 :251.
23 Seabrook, M. F. 1980. the psychological relation-
ship between dairy cows and dairy cowmen and its
implications for animal welfare. Int. J. Stud. Anim.
Prob. 1:295.
24 Selman, I. E., A. D. McEvvan, and E. W. Fisher.
1970. Studies on natural sucking in cattle during
the first eight hours post partum. 11. Behavioral
studies (calves). Anita. Behav. 18:284.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 66, No. 10, 1983