RSS format
Updates via email
The Big Business of Dairy Farming: Big Trouble for Cows
Most people are aware that dairies in the United States bear little resemblance to the idyllic pastures of yesteryear. As with other branches of animal agriculture, such as chicken and egg production, hog farming, and beef production—as well as crop growing—small, traditional dairy farms have been steadily pushed out of the business by large agribusiness concerns. Since the mid-20th century, the growth of factory farming has led to the transformation of agriculture, forcing small farmers to “get big or get out.” Small farms cannot compete with big agricultural firms because they cannot achieve the same economies of scale.
The American dairy industry annually produces about 20 billion gallons of raw milk, which is processed and sold as butter, cheese, ice cream, and fluid milk. This amounts to about $27 billion in sales each year. There are between 65,000 and 81,000 U.S. dairies, yet corporate consolidation means that about half of the milk sold comes from just under 4 percent of the farms. While the large number of brands and labels on store shelves would seem to indicate a diversity of sources, in reality many of these brands are owned by a handful of large corporations. For example, the country’s largest dairy producer, Dean Foods, owns 40 or so brands, 3 of them representing organic milk.
As the number of dairy farms has decreased, the size of those remaining has increased. Between 1991 and 2004, the number of U.S. dairies dropped by almost half, and the number of dairies with 100 or more cows grew by 94 percent. Because big businesses typically seek continuously increasing profits, production must be maximized, almost always at the expense of the cows in one way or another. The cows must be pushed to produce more and more milk. The production of large amounts of milk has called for changes that affect the animals’ health, including the use of drugs, mechanization, and factory-like housing conditions. Most dairy cows are raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs); about 10 percent of those are considered large CAFOs, each with more than 700 dairy cattle.
One of the keys to higher production and higher profits is to increase the milk yield while raising fewer cows. Between 1950 and 2000, the number of dairy cows in the United States fell by more than half, yet during that same period, the average annual milk yield more than tripled. What made this possible, and how has it affected the welfare of the animals?
Frequent pregnancy
Cows are like any other mammal in that they produce milk for the nurturing of their young; in order to lactate, a cow must recently have given birth. In her natural state, a cow gives birth after nine months of gestation and nurses her calf for seven months to a year. This is “wasted” time that a dairy factory farm can ill afford—in addition to the fact that the milk is meant to go to market, not to the calf—so calves born to dairy cows, whose primary purpose in being born is to induce lactation, are taken away either immediately after birth or within a day or so. This separation causes great distress to the mother, who would normally feed the calf more than a dozen times a day and, like other mammals, forms a strong bond with her young soon after birth. Male calves are killed or sent off to be raised for veal or beef. Females become dairy cows like their mothers; frequent replacement of herd members is necessary because the death rate of dairy cows is very high. Cows’ natural life expectancy is 20 years or more, but the average dairy cow lives just 3 to 4 years, exhausted by constant lactation and frequent disease.
Cows on factory farms give birth once a year as a result of artificial insemination. About two to three months after calving, a cow is once again impregnated, and the cycle begins again. Lactation continues throughout, except for a few weeks’ break in between its cessation (about eight months or so after calving) and the next time she gives birth. Thus, dairy cows are induced to produce milk for most of the year.
High-protein feed and growth hormones
Cows naturally eat grass, which is how the bucolic image of dairy herds grazing in pastures became so well recognized. A diet of grass, however, is high-fiber and of low nutritional density and does not result in a high milk yield. The milk produced from this diet would be enough to feed a calf, but it is not enough to satisfy market needs. So modern dairy cows are fed a low-fiber, high-protein diet of grains such as corn and soy along with animal by-products. As ruminants, they have stomachs with four compartments that are made to process high-fiber grass; partially digested food, or cud, is regurgitated to again be chewed and swallowed, a process that occupies cows for up to eight hours a day. The feed given to cows on dairy farms, however, does not lend itself to this process and is thus difficult for them to digest, causing health problems. In addition, the use of high-protein diets—because they contain animal protein, including, in the past, tissue from diseased cows—has been implicated in the proliferation of mad cow disease.
Another tool to increase milk yield is the use of the genetically engineered growth hormone rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone). This hormone contributes to an average milk prouction of 100 pounds of milk per cow per day, 10 times as much milk as a calf would need. Maintaining such high production for such an unnatural length of time exhausts the cows’ bodies and depletes them nutritionally to such a degree that even the nutritionally dense feed cannot compensate. Copious milk production causes cows’ bones to become severely deficient in calcium. They thus become prone to fracture, and the result is a sharp increase in the number of “downed” cows, or “downers,” a general term for farm and food animals who collapse, unable to stand up again, and must be destroyed.
The use of rBGH causes other serious problems, including chronic mastitis (a painful bacterial infection and swelling of the udder), which is related to overproduction of milk. To treat infections and help prevent them, dairy farms routinely administer antibiotics to their cows. Antibiotics and rBGH find their way into the milk that humans drink. It is known that the overuse of antibiotics, including routine preventative use, encourages the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. In addition, milk from cows given rBGH shows an increased presence of IGF-1, an insulin-like growth factor, which has been shown to cause cancer in humans. The amount of IGF-1 present in milk produced by cows given rBGH is two to 10 times that in non-rGBH milk. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating the use of such supplements, not only has allowed the use of rBGH but has also refused to allow the labeling of milk to advise consumers that it contains the hormone. The United States is the only industrialized nation that permits the use of growth hormone in animals used for food.
How dairy cows are housed
In 2001 more than 75 percent of dairy cows had no access to pasture. Cows in many dairies are housed in a combination of outdoor and indoor facilities, such as sheds, outdoor dirt corrals, and stall barns that may not have access to the open air and where cows may be tied up or otherwise restrained for long periods of time. Cows who are restrained in stalls show signs of stress from social isolation and the inability to lie down; further, they are likely to develop teat and skin injuries, lameness, and susceptibility to a variety of diseases.
Over the last few decades, agribusiness dairies have experienced great growth in the southwestern United States, which has a very different climate from the country’s traditional dairy-producing regions, including New England and the Midwest. The Southwest does not have expanses of grassland, and most dairy cattle there are housed in unpaved dirt lots, or drylots. The undeveloped surface of such lots is hard on the cows and causes frequent lameness. Drylots offer inadequate protection from the elements, and heavy rains create layers of mud and manure several inches thick, often making it difficult or impossible for the cows to walk or lie down on a dry surface, which dairy experts recognize as a health requirement for cows. Further, the population density on dirt feedlots tends to be very high. In the southern regions of California, one of the largest dairy-producing states, the average number of cows per dairy was 800 to 1,000 in 2005—more than three times higher than it was in 1972. High density makes it difficult to maintain sanitation, and dairy cows housed this way are subject to frequent illness and infections.
Organic dairies
Unlike the sorry state of most so-called “free-range” chicken facilities, the majority of organic milk producers do treat their cows well, providing access to pasture and proper feed, avoiding growth hormones, and adhering to ethical standards. However, the growth of the organic milk industry in the 1990s and the early 2000s has attracted the attention of agribusinesses, whose desire to participate in this lucrative market has led them to compromise organic standards and lobby for the degradation of such regulations at the federal level. According to a 2006 report by the Cornucopia Institute, a farm-policy research group, some of the country’s leading producers of milk, after entering the organic market, have attempted to transfer their factory-farm dairying techniques to the production of “organic” milk. The study found that nearly 20 percent of the organic-brand milk on store shelves was from producers following substandard practices. Consumers should be aware that some of the biggest names in the business are among those implicated.
—L. Murray
Images: Dairy cows restrained in stalls—D.Hatz/Factoryfarm.org; dairy cows in shed—K. Hudson/Factoryfarm.org; cow with mastitis—Courtesy of PETA; factory farm dairy feedlot—C.A.R.E./Factoryfarm.org; cow (left) and calf (right) on sustainable dairy farm—J. Peterson/Factoryfarm.org.
To Learn More
- Resources and information on dairy farms from FactoryFarm.org
- FactoryFarming.com page on dairy cows
- March 2006 Cornucopia Institute report rating organic dairies across the United States
- Article on the controversy over the Cornucopia Institute report
- News item on mad cow proteins found in milk
- Sustainable Table Web page on dairy farming
- Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance
- Organic Consumers Association
- “The Meatrix II”
- Information from GoVeg.com about the FDA and its regulation of hormones and antibiotics
How Can I Help?
- Tell the USDA to Stop Factory Farm Organics (comment period ends June 12, 2007)
- Join the OCA Campaign to Support Organic Milk and Fair Trade Coffee Farmers
- Ideas from the organization Sustainable Table
- Compassionate Action for Animals (lists upcoming actions in the right-hand margin)
Books We Like
MAD COWBOY: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won’t Eat Meat
Howard F. Lyman, with Glen Merzer (2001)
Howard Lyman, like three generations of his family before him, was a Montana cattle rancher and a crop farmer, and he stayed one through all the vicissitudes of farm life and the setbacks of encroaching agribusiness. He was as committed as any modern farmer to the use of chemicals and the pursuit of profits, and he continued this way until one day he simply could do so no longer.
A serious health challenge in his middle age—a spinal tumor that threatened to cripple him—jolted Lyman into reconsidering his way of life. For years he had put aside his misgivings about what his farm practices were doing to the land and his animals, but during his crisis he suddenly realized the extent to which his stewardship was doing more harm than good. After recovering from surgery to remove the tumor, Lyman attempted to turn to organic farming, but this proved impossible in a farming culture that was heavily invested, literally and figuratively, in business as usual. Instead, he sold the farm to a colony of Hutterites (a religious group who farm communally) and moved on. His eyes opened not only to the depredations wreaked by agribusiness but also to the possibility of a more compassionate and healthy way of life, he became a lobbyist for organic standards, a vegan, and, eventually, a co-defendant in the famous lawsuit brought by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association against him and Oprah Winfrey for “food disparagement”—a libel suit filed on behalf of beef. This came about as a result of Lyman’s 1996 appearance on Winfrey’s show, during which he revealed disturbing facts about cattle ranching (including the fact that slaughtered cows were being ground up and fed to other cows, a conduit of infection for mad cow disease). (Lyman and Winfrey won the suit.)
Mad Cowboy is both a memoir and a lesson on food production, health, and compassion from one who knows the business of agriculture inside-out. Lyman’s personal history gives weight and credibility to his views. His style is honest, plain-speaking, humble, and humorous. When he describes his sorrow and frustration at what modern farming methods are doing to animals and the environment, the reader knows that he speaks as one who once was guilty of the same crimes. His chapter titles tell the story: Chapter One, “How to Tell the Truth and Get in Trouble,” talks about his life and the Oprah trial; Chapter Six, “Biotech Bullies,” reveals the collaboration between the agrochemical industry and the government; Chapter Eight, “Skip the Miracles and Eat Well,” explains human nutritional needs, the drawbacks of a traditional diet rich in meat and dairy, and the health advantages of following a vegan diet. Mad Cowboy is not only informative; it is also simply fun to read, as Lyman’s integrity and personality come through on every page.
—L. Murray
June 11th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Thanks so much for sharing this article that focuses on what using bovine growth hormone does to cows. There is much debate over the use of BGH. While the FDA in the U.S. has given it its blessing, it is banned in Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and was never allowed in Canada or the European Union Countries. After researching possible cancer risks at length, the jury is still out on risks for humans (although I would not allow milk from cows treated with BGH in my home). We do know without question however, that the use of bovine growth hormone makes cows sick. This is in fact the reason BGH is not allowed in Germany. German veterinarians take an oath that they will not do anything to intentionally harm animals. Since BGH does that, German veterinarians deemed its use in cows unethical. Thanks!
Lynne Eldridge M.D.
Author, “Avoiding Cancer One Day At A Time”
http://www.avoidcancernow.com
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
This article is a regurgitated mess of half-truths and fallacies. To begin, 95% of American dairy farms are family owned and are not controlled by ‘agribusiness’. While companies like Dean Foods are attempting to dominate certain markets, the majority of milk in this country is still marketed through farmer controlled co-ops. You imply that high-producing cows are a result of larger corporate dairies, however the finest, most productive cows are almost always from smaller herds of cattle, which are still found throughout the country. The average herd of dairy cows in the US is only 100 animals, and the practices on small farms are usually identical to those on larger ones. Cows on large dairies do not suffer from worse health than smaller ones, and Southwestern dairies pride themselves on the level of cow comfort they provide. I urge readers to find out for themselves by visiting a local dairy.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
I did not know how these poor cows live! How come there is not more information on this in the news? What can be done to change this?
June 24th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Mr. Boyle, we provided some of the sources used in the writing of our article above (under “To Learn More”). It is not clear from your comment whether you are advocating for small farmers or large ones.
Your statement that 95% of dairy farms in the U.S. are family owned agrees, in fact, with our statement, “There are between 65,000 and 81,000 U.S. dairies, yet corporate consolidation means that about half of the milk sold comes from just under 4 percent of the farms.”
Any implication that large corporate dairies alone exact high productivity from cows—if you find such an implication in our text—was unintentional. Might not the practices described herein be understood as describing the whole industry, then? All farmers need to have their cows produce a large amount of milk in order for their dairies to remain competitive.
Your statement that Southwestern dairies pride themselves on the level of cow comfort they provide does not contradict the findings of the research presented here. They may well do so, but this does not in itself demonstrate that the cows are comfortable. It is a far cry from the pasture-based dairy farms of long ago to the feedlots, stalls, and pens of today. Feeding and housing of dairy cows have evolved to be quite divergent from the natural needs and practices of the cows, to say nothing of the frequent pregnancies and the removal of their calves.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Ms. Murray, I too provided a source for my arguments (www.dairyfarmingtoday.org), but it appears to have been edited out. It is unfortunate that an institution like the Encyclopedia Britannica would resort to such heavy-handed avoidance of factual information.
Quite simply, I advocate for all dairy farms, large or small, organic and conventional. There is a place for all of these in our world, and I believe most readers would agree. Those that don’t are likely fighting for an agenda that denies a deep 10,000 year history of animal husbandry.
While I can’t, nor is it my place to, critique each point in this article, I will challenge your assertion that ‘frequent’ pregnancies of cattle are somehow detrimental to the animals. Cows that are placed in natural surroundings with bulls (as many dairies still do) will typically be bred again within 100 days of calving, and often within 55 days. It’s simply the natural cycle of life. Those dairy farmers that use AI are simply replicating that cycle, using a technique that can improve genetics and doesn’t expose workers to large, aggressive and dangerous bulls. I’m not sure what in this you find objectionable, unless of course, you find people with large families equally heinous.
Again, I urge the readers to head out to the country and talk with your local farmers, including those with large farms, you’ll often find them quite open and friendly. The truth can often shatter simple misperceptions.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Mr. Boyle, just so you know, we did not edit out your URL. You did not include that URL separately in the text of your message. Our comment form has a box in which you can type a URL, which is what you did, and our blog software incorporated it into your name as it appears above. If you click on your name, you can see yourself that it is a live link to your website.
July 8th, 2007 at 2:45 am
Bravo for your article on dairy farming in USA. I am sure such practices are carried on all over the developed world, which makes me wonder just how “developed” we are. For me, three things stand out your article:
- firstly, the farmers seem to be so used to what they are doing that they just do not see the problem;
- secondly and more importantly, these pratices exist simply to give some producers a competitive edge over others - we can produce all the milk and meat we need without them;
- thirdly, government supports them.
The role of the legislature is primordial in commercial life. We accept that it is necessary for the legislature to create a framework within which competitive business can be carried on in such a way that no undue harm comes to employees or consumers. We are coming slowly to accept that this must also be extended to the environment. We must now accept that this must be extended to animals, so that they do not endure unnecessary hardship. The problem comes, of course, in defining what constitues “unneccesary hardship”. There is a very large and very grey area here which needs investigation and because animals cannot talk, this is difficult and controversial.
David Llewellyn
August 17th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Mr. Boyle, sounds like you are working or own one of the dairies. I am sorry to say, but the truth is there. I have been on the dairies and have seen this first hand. Conditions are horrible and if the average human being saw this first hand they would never take a sip of milk again.
The simple truth is we as a collective group of people need to change these practices.
Mr. Llewellyn, you are right with your 3 points. Our eyes are now wide open to what is happening to the animals, our cows and to us as humans. My thoughts are the same as yours, what are our next steps to end this and how can we help the agribusinesses and the government make these necessary changes.
I read a wonderful comment from John Mackey at Whole Foods on next steps to change this horrible practices:
“Twenty-five years from now, I believe that factory farming in the United States will probably be illegal. First we have to create more compassionate alternatives. As we create a high standard alternative, people will be willing to look at factory farms more closely. They will move out of denial when they understand that there is an alternative. Our descendants will probably look back at this time with horror at the way we treated livestock animals just as we now look back with horror to the way our ancestors exploited the Native Americans, blacks, and women. Animals may not have equal value to human beings (at this time), but they are also sentient beings that can feel pain and suffer. I believe that they deserve a decent life and as pain free a death as possible.”
August 20th, 2007 at 8:33 am
[…] The Big Business of Dairy Farming: Big Trouble for Cows […]
August 25th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Ms Page, I suppose you made your assessment of where I work due to the fact that I actually know something about cattle. I do come from a dairy farming family, one that has been milking cows for generations, and raised around cows I’ll wager I have a better understanding of them than the author of this article.
There are numerous large and small dairies around the country that are open to the public, and many are very well attended. Their popularity belies your assertion that ‘average human beings’ would be offended by their practices. Fluid milk sales in the US are increasing, as is the consumption of all dairy products, much to the chagrin of the sponsors of this site. Moreover, world-wide demand for dairy products is increasing at a staggering rate.
It is clear from other posts on this site that Ms Murray is a vegan, intent on the destruction of animal agriculture. Like most in her movement, she will not hesitate to promote lies and exaggerations to further her cause.
I’m here to inject a bit of sanity into this discussion.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Mr Boyle,
While I recognize that you have a point of view to argue, as do we, I would like to clarify some things. Earlier, you made a false accusation that we suppressed your URL, implying that the company we work for, Encyclopaedia Britannica, would resort to the suppression of factual information, of all things. Yes, this Web site is a directly opinionated facet of our company, and deliberately so. We take a certain point of view, and we welcome discussion of anything that is said here. For example, we come out unmistakably against some practices of hunting and animal agriculture (did you not see the approving discussion of truly organic small dairies in the last part of the article?). In turn, we approve all comments except the profane; and, as far as those go, if there is any way to edit the offensive language from such posts without gutting them completely, we do so and post them, no matter whether they are against our own opinions.
Your citation of an increase in fluid milk sales and in the demand for dairy products around the globe is a red herring, and whether we greet this news with “chagrin,” as you predict, is not the question. This is another form of “shooting the messenger,” or more precisely, casting aspersions on the messenger to denigrate the message, which is all too common in public discourse today. Whether we care or not about the sales of fluid milk has nothing to do with the treatment of cows. And from the comments you can see here, it is clear that “average human beings” are, in fact, upset at how dairy cows on factory farms are treated. They may not feel the way you would like them to, or you may be offended as a dairy farmer, but these peoples’ opinions are valid, despite the continuing sale and consumption of dairy products, which you believe argues against the idea that anyone minds what happens to cows.
While I am only one of a group of editors of this site (who are, for the record, a mix of vegan, vegetarian, and “omnivorous”), and our personal identities are not the point of the site, I have said in this space that I’m a vegan. I know that some people insist on that term and worldview being coterminous with “nutty extremism,” and it is not my mandate here to change that opinion, though I would think my words and tone should go some way toward doing so. But as long as you have made the accusation that I in particular have promoted “lies and exaggerations,” an accusation you have not supported well, I will say that your guess as to an overarching motive is simply wrong: I am not intent on the “destruction” of animal agriculture, nor is this Web site. Our mission is as we state in the right-hand column, under “About This Site.” And it should also be said that our views do not necessarily represent those of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. We are engaging in a new sort of discussion here that is separate editorially from the Britannica Blog and from the contents and aims of the encyclopedia itself. Sometimes, as we did last week (8/20/07), we invite freelancers and guest writers from organizations to write for us.
Yes, as a vegan, I would like people to become persuaded to relinquish animal-exploiting practices, but I’m not intent on destroying anything. Changing hearts and minds is one thing—demonizing farmers and omnivores and dragging them kicking, screaming, and seething with resentment (and left without their livelihoods) into a brave new world is quite another. Our intention is to bring to light things that we believe need to be changed in order to make things better for animals and for the world around us.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Your article begins with a false assumption regarding dairying, namely that dairy farming was a static field until the last thirty years. The bucolic image of agriculture being an essentially unchanging endeavor is a myth - instead it has always (back into deep prehistory) been a dynamic experimental field with constant change inherent in its practice. As our society has urbanized, notions of agriculture get ‘stuck’ in the past, and hence why most Americans have a vision of a Wisconsin dairy from the late 1800s in their head when they think about dairying. Never mind that those big red distinctive barns were considered cutting-edge science when introduced in the mid-1800s and changed dairying in the US to a greater degree than anything introduced in our field since. This has always been the case since the first cows were domesticated by the Natufian culture of the Near East 8500 years ago, with each subsequent generation altering and adapting the ways in which animals are raised.
I did present some facts that contradicted you statements regarding ‘frequent’ pregnancies being a modern introduction in dairy farming, but it doesn’t appear if you really want to deal with the truth.
If you want to argue about facts, instead of opinions, let’s do it. Limit yourself to actual peer-reviewed articles from accepted scientific journals and statistics from recognized surveys, and stop “citing” websites with avowed goals of stopping animal agriculture. Your method of presenting facts is to regurgitate a sentence with little attribution, so its difficult to determine where exactly these ideas are coming from. Here’s a few questions I’ve come up with reading your piece, and I’m curious if you’d respond.
What exactly is a ‘large agribusiness concern’ and how exactly does it differ from a ‘traditional dairy farm’?
Is there evidence that small farms cannot compete with large firms? Moreover what is the evidence that ‘large firms’ (and by this I assume you mean agricultural corporations) actually own even 1% of the dairy cows in this country?
Is the increase in milk per cow between 1950 and 2000 differ greatly from percentage increases seen between 1800 and 1900, or 1900 and 1950? How much of this percentage increase is due to breed selection and simple genetic improvement?
What evidence do you have of ‘distress’ in modern dairy breeds due to the separation of cow and calf?
What is a ‘very high’ death rate amongst dairy cattle? What evidence is there that a modern dairy cow can live to 20 years of age? Where is the citation for the figure that the average dairy cow only lives three to four years? What was the cull rate of a dairy herd 100 years ago?
If a dairy cow requires years of feeding before it produces milk, and thus any income, how is it advantageous for a farmer to replace that cow after two lactations?
If cows ‘naturally’ eat grass, why is there archaeological evidence of grain in preserved cattle manure dating back to the late Neolithic? What is the history of feeding starches to cattle?
When you state that ‘modern dairy cows are fed a low-fiber, high-protein diet of grains’, where do you get that information? What do you define as low-fiber and high-protein?
What is your evidence for wide-spread acidosis amongst dairy cattle, if they are indeed all fed a supposed low-fiber diet?
Where is the evidence that dairy farmers ‘routinely’ administer antibiotics to their cows? Isn’t it true that all milk in the US is tested for the presence of antibiotics and destroyed if found to be present? What benefit to the farmer is it then to routinely keep cows out of production?
What percentage of dairy cows in the US were at any one time administered Posilac? What is that percentage today? How can one test for the presence of rBST in milk? How does the percentage of IGF-1 in milk compare to that of soy beverages? How do these numbers compare with the human bodies natural secretion of IGF-1?
How many cows in the US are still constrained in tie-stall barns? How many cows have no access to the open air?
Is there any evidence that cattle in dry lots suffer from increased disease or less milk production (the two are connected)? Are cows in dry lots more exposed to the elements than cows in grass pastures? What would be the overall environmental effects of pasturing cattle in arid regions?
Is there a difference in milk quality, as measured in SCC, LPC, and SPC between dry lot herds and others?
How does one judge the husbandry practices between traditional and organic producers to arrive at the conclusion that one treats their animals better? Do organic herds have longer life spans? How do organic and conventional herds differ in calving intervals? Rates of mastitis? How do organic dairymen treat their cows with mastitis and other infections if they can’t use antibiotics?
There’s plenty more where those came from…
August 28th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Mr Boyle,
I see your frustration and I am sorry you feel this way.
But the “average human beings” have spoken as of 8/24/07. Starbucks sent out their press release of “We have committed that by December 31, 2007, all of our fluid milk, half and half, whipping cream and eggnog used in U.S. company-operated stores will be produced without the use of rBGH.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16655614/
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=777
This has come from direct pressure of the people wanting to know what is in their food and wanting better treatment for the animals. Times are changing and I support this fully. There is no need for the factory farm conditions in the livestock business. Local dairy farmers who are ethical in their practices and treatment to their animals should be rewarded for their actions. I don’t think anyone is disputing this as you may think.
As for the dairy farms, the ethical and moral dairy farms are what people are wanting. This is especially true of the “organic” farms. But companies such as Horizon, Aurora and Three Mile Canyon have been exposed through former workers and video on their horrific conditions and treatment to the workers and the animals. So much so, Gail Eisnitz, authored Slaughterhouse, which shows the horrific conditions at Three Mile.
Thus yes, the dairy farms give the glossy marketing/advertising tours of their farms, but they are not letting people inside their real practices of the farms. All you have to do is drive or hike around the perimeters of their farms and you see the calf huts, long barracks and holding lots. No happy cows grazing on the green pastures, like the Horizon logo depicts on their packaging. This is the world of advertising, I live and breath it everyday as I work for one of the largest ad agencies in the world. It’s slick advertising, just as Goodby ad agency did the “Got Milk” campaign. It’s the large dairy farmers’ advertising budgets twisting the people’s minds. The beauty fo advertising, but people are getting smarter and now are looking to know what is going into their food and what is ending up in their bodies and their children’s bodies.
I would think you would not support these types of farms and I would hope that you are of the ethical and moral standards for dairy farming, but your anger in your posts seems as though you are not sitting well with something that is happening in your life.
Perhaps you posting on this site when it is visited by people for change and better treatment of the animals, means you truly want to make a change for the better and find common ground here.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Mr. Boyle,
Nothing in your first paragraph disputes what we’ve said here. My mention of “idyllic pastures of yesteryear” did not purport to portray historical truth but rather an idealized vision of dairy farming that people tend to hold in their minds. What follows are photographs and descriptions based on eyewitness accounts and other evidence provided by honest and credible investigators.
When I wrote the article two months ago, I verified the numbers and other factual information using the information available to me in online journals (including some scientific papers and trade journals) as well as through farm-animal advocacy organizations. The evidence of the latter is necessarily of a different kind than is found in peer-reviewed journals, but you have stated that is all you will accept, so we’ll just have to leave it there.
Most of the questions you posed are not relevant, as they are beyond the scope of what was written in the article. They seem to have been asked with the intention to prove that, because we are not scientists and dairy farmers, we are neither qualified to understand nor right to believe the evidence that has been found. For our part, as I said above, we realize that the evidence that supports a reform of farming practices for the sake of the animals is not to be found primarily in peer-reviewed journals. The appeal to the authority of peer-reviewed journals alone is misplaced.
I will attempt to answer one or two of your questions to prove a point, and then I will leave it at that, as it does not appear that you are prepared to accept what we say on any account. For example, I don’t suppose you would acknowledge any existing evidence that dairy cows and their calves experience distress upon being separated soon after birth. These are things observed in person, though perhaps not by you.
I did not mention acidosis by name; you did, as it happens, which implies that you are aware that it’s a common problem. Nevertheless: Acidosis in dairy cattle can be caused by a number of factors, according to, for example, a fact sheet presented by Dr. Limin Kung of the University of Delaware Department of Animal and Food Sciences on that department’s Web site. Among the causes are (1) a diet too high in fermentable carbohydrates (starches and sugars) and (2) low fiber content in the diet. Similar statements were published by Gabriella Varga, a professor of animal science, in Penn State’s Dairy Digest.
To go beyond acidosis and treat the larger topic of digestive problems (which is how I characterized the topic in our article), in “Maintaining digestive health in dairy cattle,” Dr. Mary Beth Ondarza states that hemorrhagic bowel syndrome (HBS) “has become more and more prevalent on dairies. HBS is characterized by sudden death of afflicted animals” with evidence of severe bleeding in the small intestine. Ondarza cites a 2002 U.S. Department of Agriculture survey that found that more than a third of large (500 cows) dairy farms had had at least one case of HBS in the previous five years. She says, too, that “reports indicate that the frequency of the problem is increasing in the US.” According to Ondarza, the cause of HBS is unknown, but predisposing conditions are “acidosis and high levels of starch reaching the small intestine.” She says that “high energy diets result in more rumen acidosis.” Perhaps one could ask Dr. Ondarza to define “high energy,” “increasing frequency,” and “more rumen acidosis” if one were now planning to put those terms into dispute. Her report does go on to say that “it is not only the amount of dietary starches and sugars that affects rumen acid levels but also the type of starch and processing” (emphasis mine) and then makes recommendations as to dietary adjustments.
Mastitis is a problem in organic dairies as well as conventional ones, but it is less of a problem. The study “Mastitis and related management factors in certified organic dairy herds in Sweden” (Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, v. 48, no. 1 [2006]) found that udder health in organic herds appeared to be better than in conventional herds that were of similar size and of similar production levels. The scientists studied 26 herds with mean herd sizes of 32 (organic) and 33 (conventional) cows. They “were found to have a lower incidence of clinical mastitis, teat injuries, and a lower proportion of cows with a high somatic cell count” (SCC). The organic farmers used homeopathic remedies, massage with liniment, and strip milking to treat the mastitis. Similar treatment was reported in the Proceedings of the British Mastitis Conference 1998 by Malla Hovi and Steve Roderick of the Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Unit of the University of Reading. You are right in your passive implication that even organic dairies use antibiotic therapy for mastitis. However, the milk withdrawal period (the period during which the treated cow’s milk must be discarded) after antibiotic treatment is much longer on organic farms (12.9 milkings) than on conventional farms (4.7 milkings). As for treatment, the British study reported that on conventional farms all mastitis cases were treated with antibiotics versus only 41% on organic farms, which preferred homeopathic treatment (52%). Another 6.9% of the organic farmers used other treatments, such as liniments. The study also indicated that organic farmers were increasingly turning to non-antibiotic treatment of mastitis.
You asked for scientific citations, and I have provided several, if that can prove anything. Obviously, we do research when we write and do not simply “regurgitate” half-truths and exaggerations as charged. And herewith, we retire on the subject. We cannot go on like this indefinitely in an attempt to satisfy other people’s agendas.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:34 am
It looks like from your sources that dairy farmers aren’t intentionally hurting their cows, and are working with the scientists to eradicate some of these problems.
As Dwight Eisenhower said “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field”.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
How we treat animals is also a reflection on how much we care about our fellow human beings. Allowing animals to roam and graze (free range) and eat proper nutritious naturalgrains and grass and other vegetation contributes to a more nutritions milk and meats that is derived from farm animals. It is inhumane to allow farm animals to remain immobile and pump them full of hormones and antibiotics, what is the point of their lives if they are only born to suffer. We must insist that animals be allowed to at least live a reasonable life, and when they are slaughtered it is done in a humane process that causes them as little pain as possible. I’m a vegan, which I’ve chosen because it’s healthier, but I still cannot understand how we’ve allowed corporate farming to decimate the private and family owned farms througout the world, and put these inhumane farming practices, all in the name of bigger quarterly profits. In the end humans will lose as much as the animals do, as there will be no healthy lifestock in existence, and we will have more diseases, toxins in our systems, and a poisoned planet.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
In response to a few questions Mr. Boyle has please refer to the following link www.sopa.org.uk to see how other countries do this.
I’m a vegetarian. I’m a horse-owner.
I do know a few dairy and beef cattle farmers.
I have seen the veal cages of smaller farms - they are certainly not like those in the pictures of factory farming. I have also seen the large pastures both the dairy and beef are on, in smaller farms (under 200 head). Guess what? no nasty filthy dirty muddy paddocks. Nice pastures, nice run-in sheds, nice dairy barn, nice big barn the beef cattle are confined to for the week or two before they are sent to slaughter. Nice huge xtra-triple-sized looking “doggie igloo” type dog-house (or in this case calf-house) for the veal calves that are allowed to turn around, that have their small confines moved to fresh pasture every few days, that are hand fed bottled milk.
And yes - I’m not seeing just the front of the properties - I get to wander all over those farms to pick up good local grass mix hay for my horses.(Amazing how local grown actually cuts down on a lot of allergies equines have….)
Sure doesn’t look anything like those pictures of factory farming. No white eyeballs rolling, no bleats of lonliness or fear…just good old murmuring lowing of cows….
January 21st, 2008 at 6:20 am
I hope that cows every where will recieve better treatment. Keep up the good work LMurry !
January 21st, 2008 at 6:23 am
Mongoose would you feel it was ok to lock foals in a tiny igloo and than slaughter them.