Everybody reading this is probably aware of the Panorama programme that set out to investigate animal welfare on dairy farms. The programme created headlines in newspapers and on the internet by highlighting completely unacceptable animal abuse. Such videos are unfortunately not unusual, and seem to always produce the same response — cries of ‘this is a tiny minority’ and ‘it's not representative’ from the industry, cancellation from purchasers, and claims from activists that ‘this is just the tip of the iceberg of abuse’. Sometimes, there's also industry complacency (‘steps have been taken’), which is then shown up by new material showing that very little has changed. They are a clear and present part of the campaign against farming by activists who do not see any benefit in livestock farming and believe that the failures of individuals mean that the system is corrupt.
Perhaps the more interesting part of the programme was a focus not just on egregious animal abuse but also on less immediately eye-catching welfare issues, such as the use of hip-hoists, lameness and cow-calf separation. This is a much more interesting area than blatant cruelty, which no one can defend. Of the three, hip hoists are perhaps the most immediately viscerally distressing to the general public. They can be useful, even crucial, in the management of down cows, but too often they are used with insufficient consideration of the cow. It is often done with good intentions (‘she'll be better if I…’), but perhaps farmers should think more carefully when using them and consider what it would be like if it were to appear on YouTube.
Lameness is a perennial problem. There has been some fabulous research on lameness in the UK and we do know much more about how to prevent it, but we still have far too many lame cows. I do think that farm profitability has played a major role in preventing a reduction in lameness on many farms. Farms that do not make money are much less likely to be able solve lameness problems. However, the lack of profitability is also used as an excuse to not make changes. We need more action and we need a concentrated effort to get people to use the resources we already have.
Cow-calf separation is an another type of issue altogether. In contrast to lameness where everyone agrees it is a ‘bad thing’, there is a mismatch between industry and consumer perception in regard to cow-calf separation. In their comment the BCVA stated that early separation was the standard procedure because of the welfare benefits to the cow and calf (a view which a recent review in the Journal of Dairy Science suggested had limited evidence either for or against (Beaver et al, 2019: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15603)), and specifically highlighted the benefits in terms of colostrum management. Colostrum management is easier when the calf is separated, but this is because too many dairy calves do not suckle successfully from their dam. However, rather than trying to improve the natural process (there have been no published studies of strategies to improve suckling success in dairy cows — beyond putting the calf on the teat), we have focused on creating an artificial system. If beef cows can suckle their calves why can't dairy calves? This is an issue that is only going to grow and, in the future is going be a major barrier to the social licensing of dairy farming. We need to accept that the current approach to calf separation is not what an increasing part of the livestock farming supporting public want.
The situation in Ukraine is of course uppermost on the minds of most people as I write this editorial. The waste of human life and unnecessary destruction of property is clear for all to see. The impact of the war on animal welfare, both companion and livestock, is not so high profile but is still an important part of the unfolding tragedy. We have to hope that sense prevails and that the Russian leadership realises quickly that this is an unwinnable war.