To get updates on new site content, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

Difference between revisions of "Cattle"

From JFA Wiki
(Pus in Milk)
(Pus in Milk)
Line 302: Line 302:
  
 
==== Pus in Milk ====
 
==== Pus in Milk ====
When cows develop mastitis (described previously), their bodies produce pus to fight the infection. Pus and skin shed from cows' udders are known as ''somatic cells'', and they inevitably find their way into the milk. In the USA, it is considered acceptable for a single milliliter of milk to contain up to 750,000 pus and skin cells.<ref>“Determining U.S. Milk Quality Using Bulk-Tank Somatic Cell Counts, 2013.” Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, September 2014. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy_monitoring/BTSCC_2013infosheet.pdf.</ref>
+
When cows develop mastitis (described previously), their bodies produce pus to fight the infection. Pus and skin shed from cows' udders are known as ''somatic cells'', and they inevitably find their way into the milk.<ref>Malek dos Reis, Carolina Barbosa, Juliana Regina Barreiro, Lucinéia Mestieri, Marco Aurélio de Felício Porcionato, and Marcos Veiga dos Santos. “Effect of Somatic Cell Count and Mastitis Pathogens on Milk Composition in Gyr Cows.” BMC Veterinary Research 9, no. 1 (April 8, 2013): 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-9-67.</ref> In the USA, it is considered acceptable for a single milliliter of milk to contain up to 750,000 pus and skin cells.<ref>“Determining U.S. Milk Quality Using Bulk-Tank Somatic Cell Counts, 2013.” Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, September 2014. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy_monitoring/BTSCC_2013infosheet.pdf.</ref>
  
 
=== Deseases and Conditions ====
 
=== Deseases and Conditions ====

Revision as of 04:30, 26 November 2019

Contents

This draft has been assigned to User:Bethany.Chester and will be moved to the main namespace when completed.

This article provides summarized information about cattle that should prove useful to those advocating for animal rights, as well as to those exploring the rationale for veganism.

It covers various aspects of cattle in the context of animal rights, including injustices and suffering, humane labels and certifications, sentience and cognition, the environmental consequences of cattle farming, the health risks of beef, and impacts to communities and workers,

<-- Reminder: don't be hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration to use graphic, persuasive language that represents reality. -->

<-- Several references say "citation needed." The author will receive credit for the words the citation is provided for. -->

<-- as usual, avoid where possible animal rights sites for these sources—always better to use veterinary, animal ag, government, etc sources. Sites like PCRM, Harvard Public Health, etc are good-->

General Information

Definitions

Cattle are "domesticated quadrupeds held as property or raised for use," or more specifically "bovine animals on a farm or ranch."[1] We use this word reluctantly because of its etymology from property,[2] but related words, as shown below, don't adequately describe our topic, while cattle does.

Bovine is sometimes used as a synonym for cattle, but zoologically means "any of a subfamily (Bovinae) of bovids including oxen, bison, buffalo, and their close relatives."[1]

Cow is sometimes used generically to refer to male and female cattle, but technically is "the mature female of cattle (genus Bos)."[1] The word can also used for females of other species, such as elephants and whales.

<-- use the same MW reference for all definitions, unless good reason not to -->

Calf refers to "the young of the domestic cow." It is also used for the young of related species such as bison, as well as certain other mammals like whales and elephants.[1]

Livestock denotes "animals kept or raised for use or pleasure." It is usually used for farm animals.[1]

Heifer refers to "a young cow, especially one that has not had a calf."[1]

Steer usually means "a male bovine animal and especially a domestic ox (Bos taurus) castrated before sexual maturity." It can also refer to "an ox less than four years old."[1]

Bull means "a male bovine," particularly an uncastrated adult. It is also used to refer to adult males of various other species, such as whales and elephants.

Ox refers to "a domestic bovine mammal (Bos taurus)," or more broadly simply a bovine mammal. It is sometimes used to mean "an adult castrated male domestic ox."

Lineage

Numbers

<-- when referring to numbers slaughtered, link to this table instead of using a footnote. -->

Injustices and Suffering

The injustices inherent in exploiting cattle and other non-human animals stem from seeing them as commodities having only instrumental value, lacking any inherent worth apart from their usefulness to humans.

As Tom Regan put it, the animals we use "have a life of their own that is of importance to them, apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it and also of what happens to them. And what happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares experientially better or worse for the one whose life it is."

As shown in the section on sentience and cognition, cattle not only have a will to live and value their lives, just as humans do, but also have desires, preferences, emotions, families, social communities, natural behaviors, a sense of themselves, and a sense of the future.

The injustices discussed below—all arising from a failure to recognize the inherent worth of other sentient beings—are either standard practice or not unusual. And, as shown in the section below on humane labels and certifications, this is true even for products with a humane label or certification. To omit a significant number of these injustices would likely render the cost of such products unaffordable by all but the most affluent, and we would still have to slaughter them.

As shown below, the injustices and cruelties that cattle must endure are many and often draconian. The life of a dairy cow is particularly egregious because the cycle of artificial insemination, separation from offspring, and mechanical milking repeats for 4 or 5 years until she is slaughtered, often for hamburger meat.

Loss of Life

To take the life of any sentient being is to harm that being by depriving them of opportunities for fulfillment, even if it is done suddenly and painlessly (which it is not, as explained below).

We have no nutritional need for beef or for cow milk (or any animal product) so denying cattle their lives is unnecessary, as are the other forms of suffering enumerated here. Not only are we taking their lives—we are doing so after allowing them to live just a fraction of their natural lifespans. Dairy cows are slaughtered after living 20 percent of a 15-20-year natural lifespan, while cattle used for beef are slaughtered after living less than 7 percent of a 15-20-year natural lifespan.

Slaughter

<-- discuss methods of slaughter, for example: USDA inspecter testimonials, slaughter speed lines, and the cruelty involved. The books Slaughterhouse" and Eating Animals can help if you have them or can get them. —>

Method 1, etc.

<-- for each of the following cruelties, but only as applicable: to what extent is it performed?; when (what age, repeating?); how painful?; pain relief given?; lasting damage? -->

Mutilations

Dehorning and Disbudding

<-- point out it is performed on cows, not just bulls; try to find out the extent to which this doesn't occur because of selective breeding to eliminate horns. -->

Cows and calves (including females) often have their horns removed to prevent them from injuring people or other animals. This procedure is usually done without anesthetic, despite causing acute pain.[3]

Dehorning. This process involves cutting through bone and horn tissue with either a wire, a saw, or a mechanical gouger, which has been shown to be painful.[3] Calves may be in pain for several days or even weeks following the procedure.


Disbudding. In calves under two months of age, the horns have not yet attached to the skull. When the procedure is carried out at this stage, it is called "disbudding." It is usually done with either a hot iron or caustic paste.[3]

Some farmers selectively breed for polled cattle, meaning those without horns. However, this is far from widespread and dehorning and disbudding procedures are still common.[4] In 2007, a USDA report found that cattle were dehorned on 94 percent of American dairy farms.[5]

Castration

Male calves are usually castrated to reduce aggression and prevent reproduction. This may be carried out physically, chemically, or hormonally, though physical methods are most typical. Pain relief is often not used for younger calves.[6] However, studies show that the most common methods of physical castration (rubber ring, Burdizzo, and surgery) all cause acute pain.[7] This is evidenced by behaviors such as struggling, kicking, foot stamping, restlessness, reduced food intake, and lying down more than usual.[8]

Rubber ring method. This involves using an elastic band to prevent blood from flowing into the testicles and scrotum so that they eventually fall off. It is usually used on younger calves and can cause infections like tetanus and blackleg.[6]

Burdizzo. A Burdizzo is a metal clamp used to crush the blood vessels leading to the testicles. This causes the testicles to initially swell and then shrivel.[6]

Surgical castration. This involves making incisions in the scrotum and pulling out the testicles, then cutting the cord containing the blood vessels and spermatic cord. It results in an open wound, meaning there is a risk of infection.[6]

Chemical castration. This means injecting chemicals into the testicular parenchyma to cause permanent damage. Studies suggest it is as painful or even more painful than surgical castration. Wounds take longer to heal and do not heal as well.[9]

Hormonal castration. Usually, this involves injecting immunocontraceptives into the body.[10] It is not common as it is considered less effective than physical methods of castration.[8]

Branding

Cattle are often branded with hot irons as a method of identification. According to USDA data, 20.5 percent of cattle in the US were branded in 2007-8.[11] During the process, cattle show symptoms such as kicking, tail flicking, vocalizations, and falling down, indicating that it is painful.[12] Evidence shows that the resulting wound likely remains painful for at least eight weeks.[13]

Tail docking

Dairy cows sometimes have their tails docked as it is believed to improve hygiene during milking. However, there is no evidence to support this.[14] A 2008 survey carried out in the USA found that 82.3 percent of cows had their tails docked.[15]

Tail docking is carried out without anesthetic, usually using either a knife or a rubber band. It is known to cause acute pain,[16] and there is some evidence that it may also cause chronic pain.[17]

Cows use their tails to keep flies away, but docked cows are unable to do this. Studies show that they are attacked by more flies as a result.[16]

Living Conditions

Feed Lots / CAFO

Mechanical Milking

<-- for how long at a time?; how many times a day?; cover discomfort and infection here, mention mastitis and say it's covered later -->

Other 1, etc.

Denial of Natural Behaviors

Nuturing and Being Nutured

<-- include at least these ideas: Mothers are separated from their calves soon after birth. Cows have strong maternal instincts and have been known to grieve and bellow for weeks after separation. Calves will never know the love of nurturing of their mothers. -->

In the dairy industry, calves are usually taken from their mothers almost immediately after birth. This is very upsetting for both mother and calf. Mother cows have strong maternal instincts and often call for their calves for hours or even days after separation.[18][19] Calves are often kept in isolation for at least a few weeks after birth, and will never be nurtured by their mothers. Studies suggest that this has long-term effects — for example, calves separated from their mothers cope worse with stress than those allowed to remain with them.[20]

Sex

Social Behaviours

<-- friendships, grooming, etc, how is it that these are denied? There may not be a strong case here, and if so, omit -->

Other 1, etc.

Reproduction and Breeding

Artificial Insemination

In industrialized countries, artificial insemination is the standard method of impregnating cows.[21] The procedure calls for an entire human arm being inserted into the cow's anus to guide the semen injection gone which is inserted through the cow's vulva.[22]

Semen Collection

Teaser Bull. To artificially inseminate a cow, semen must be collected. This involves a teaser-bull, usually a male, and an involuntary donor bull. In the process, female pheromones are released to get the "donor" bull aroused, compelling him to mount the teaser bull. In the process, the teaser bull often, to put it mildly, suffers tissue damage, as semen is collected in what the industry calls a loving cup.[23]

Electroejaculation. <-- describe the process; how much is it used in comparison to the Teaser Bull method? -->

Veal

Most male calves born to dairy cows are useless to the industry as they cannot produce milk. As a result, they may be raised for veal instead.[24] Many veal calves spend their lives confined in tiny crates measuring as little as one by two meters. These are designed to prevent them from moving so that they do not build up muscle and their flesh stays tender. They may also be fed milk substitutes that are deficient in iron because pale veal is considered more desirable.[25] These living conditions make veal calves very susceptible to illnesses like diarrhea and chronic pneumonia.[26]

However, the popularity of veal has declined in recent years,[27] partially due to animal welfare concerns.[28] Unfortunately, this means that many male dairy calves are now shot shortly after birth. In 2018, an investigation carried out by the Guardian revealed that 95,000 male calves per year are slaughtered at birth in the UK alone.[29]

A separate article on veal will be available at some future date.

Other 1, etc.

Handling and Transport

Forced Movement

<-- beating, prodding, shocking, etc -->

Other 1, etc.

Cruel Transport

Disease and Mortality

Mastitis

Mastitis is an infectious disease involving the persistent inflammation of a cow's udder tissue. It is extremely common on modern factory farms — a USDA report found that 24.8 percent of cows in the USA had the disease at some point in 2014. In a small number of cases, it was fatal.[30] Studies have shown that it causes pain and discomfort, especially as it makes it uncomfortable for cows to lie down.[31]

Downers

A downer cow is one who is unable to rise. There are a number of potential causes, but one of the most common is "milk fever," which occurs shortly after a cow gives birth.[32] Modern dairy cows have been selectively bred to produce much more milk than their ancestors, which is difficult for their bodies to sustain. As a result, they may become deficient in nutrients such as calcium, causing milk fever.[33]

While some downer cows recover, many do not and are euthanized.[32] In the USA, it is illegal to send downed cattle to slaughter. However, a loophole in the law allows some downed cattle to be slaughtered anyway. If cattle are able to stand when inspected by the USDA prior to slaughter, they can be killed — even if they later become downers.[34]

Undercover investigations have documented cruel treatment of downer cows at slaughterhouses, including being dragged with chains, shocked with electric prods, rammed with forklift trucks, and sprayed with a hose to simulate drowning.[35] A 2006 audit carried out by the USDA’s Office of Inspector General found downer cows being moved to slaughter with a forklift truck.[36]

Lameness

Lameness is extremely common in high-yielding dairy cows. This is partly because their udders become so large that there is much more weight on their inner claws than on the outer ones. Studies show that the more milk a cow produces, the more prone she is to lameness.[37] Some other factors contributing to lameness include standing on concrete floors, badly done hoof trimming, and poor hygiene, which can lead to bacterial infections.[38]

Humane Labels and Certifications

<— don’t do anything in this section. I’m redoing and will use embeds from other pages —>

Investigations by Consumer Reports and the Open Philanthropy Project (and others) reveal that humane-sounding labels and certifications are largely meaningless, as shown below. In general, these investigations reveal that the standards are weak and unenforced, audits and inspections are rarely done, and if they are done and violations are found, which is infrequent, no one gets fined.[39][40]

Here we address the most common labels and certifications. Some labels and certifications cover some forms of abuse, and others cover different forms of abuse, but none address all forms of abuse. But even if they did, the standards are often not enforced.

<-- using a different tactic here from the Pigs article: In general, instead of pointing out specific abuses allowed, just we just discredit the entire label or certification. copied from https://justiceforanimals.org/?curid=88 -->

<-- Oh crap. I just discovered that our Consumer Reports greenerchoices.org links now redirect to a general food labeling site, which is not as comprehensive and doesn't have statements that are as strong. Most don't have accessed dates, I think because they were done before CMOS 17. I checked and I do have access dates stored in the Zotero app, and I will retrofit. This illustrates the need to always have an access date in each citation that links to a web site. -->

<-- FYI, I plan to put the text pertaining to humane labels in templates or a custom namespace and then include them here and in other articles -->

Pasture raised

According to Consumer Reports, “government agencies have no common standard that producers have to meet to make a 'pasture raised' claim on a food label, no definition for ‘pasture,’ and no requirement for the claim to be verified through on-farm inspections.”[43]

Grass fed

The USDA-regulated grass fed label in the United States requires that the bovine is fed grass their entire life. The designation has only to do with feeding and does not prohibit routine cruelties, such as dehorning, castration, confinement, harsh living conditions, rough handling, and lack of veterinary care.

Enforcement is weak,[44] and the animals are still slaughtered at an early age.[45]

Organic

Some have the perception that organic means humanely raised, but that is not the case. Organic farmers are free to treat their animals no better than non-organic farmers. This is because the USDA, which controls the organic label in the United States, ruled that the label does not allow "broadly prescriptive, stand-alone animal welfare regulations."[47]

Consumer Reports informs us that while there are organic standards relating to animals, they lack clarity and precision, letting producers with poor standards sell animal products.[48]

Certified humane raised and handled

Consumer Reports says that "we do not rate Certified Humane as a highly meaningful label for animal welfare, because the standards do not have certain requirements that a majority of consumers expect from a 'humanely raised' label, such as access to the outdoors."[49]

Whole Foods' Global Animal Partnership (GAP) certified

The Open Philanthropy Project criticized GAP for having weak enforcement and for providing only slight improvements over standard factory farming conditions.[50] For example, according to Consumer Reports, "standards for slaughter do not exist..."[51]

GAP doesn't even publish standards for dairy cows, arguably the most abused of any of the farmed mammals.

American Humane Certified

According to Consumer Reports, "the requirements fall short in meeting consumer expectations for a 'humane' label in many ways."[52]

Sentience and Cognition

While we are not suggesting that the degree of moral consideration given to an animal be based on their cognitive capacity, it seems that most people are not fully aware of the rich cognitive, emotional, and psychological lives that cattle experience.

Object Discrimination and Recognition of Others

Cows are able to discriminate between different geometric shapes, the same shapes in varying sizes, and stimuli in different sizes and levels of brightness.[53]

They can also discriminate between different people, showing fear when they encounter those who have treated them roughly. They are even able to tell the difference between people who wear the same clothes. In one study, cows were able to learn which of their handlers would give them a food reward and learned to approach that handler more often. This shows their ability for associative learning.[53]

Cows are also able to discriminate between others of the same species, both those they are familiar with and strangers, and remember this information for at least twelve days. When shown photographs of familiar cows in one study, they recognized them as representations of the individuals they knew. The cows immediately chose photographs of familiar cows over those of unfamiliar ones. This provides evidence that they store mental images of others. The fact that they can recognize others from photographs as well as in real life suggests that they have a "sophisticated visual discrimination capacity."[53]

A Sense of the Future

In one study, a food trolley was slowly pushed along so that cows could follow and eat from it. The trolley was then pushed into a tunnel where the cows couldn't see it. Many of the cows moved to the opposite end of the tunnel to wait for the trolley to emerge. This shows that they can anticipate the future and extrapolate it from the past.[53] There have also been reported cases of rescued dairy cows hiding their newborn calves as they expect them to be taken away,[54] again suggesting that they can anticipate the future.

Spatial Learning and Long-Term Memory

Studies show that cattle are skilled at navigating mazes and are able to remember where in the mazes food is located for up to eight hours. Cows in one study remembered the configuration of a maze for as long as six weeks. In another study, cows learned to associate a plastic tub with food and still remembered this information a year later. A literature review concluded that cattle have "robust spatial memory abilities."[53]

Emotional Lives

Cattle experience fear and anxiety in stressful situations, shown by behaviors such as escape attempts and vocalizations. They show signs of frustration when separated from their calves or shown food they cannot access. When gently petted, their visible eye white percentage decreases, a sign of positive emotional arousal. They also become more relaxed and their heart rates decrease.[53]

Additionally, there is evidence that cattle experience more complex emotions. In one study, heifers showed signs of excitement after completing a task and receiving a reward, compared with a control group who received a reward without completing a task. This suggests that cattle may have at least some self-awareness and that they enjoy achieving goals.[53]

Studies have shown that calves make more "pessimistic" decisions following a negative experience, showing that their emotional state affects their judgment. They also show that when cattle are stressed, those nearby show signs of stress as well. This is evidence of emotional contagion, sometimes considered to be a basic form of empathy.[53]

Mother cows have very strong bonds with their calves and show signs of great distress when separated from them. Calves raised by their mothers cope better with stressful situations than those who are separated.

Personality

Limited research has been done on personality in cattle. However, evidence shows that they do consistently respond differently to situations like being milked. Other studies show that some cattle are more nervous, aggressive, or sociable than others.[53]

Environmental Consequences

The breeding, confinement, and slaughter of cattle have a profoundly negative impact on the environment. It accounts for a large percentage of the environmental damage done by animal agriculture[55]

You would think that might have some ramifications for personal action, and it does:

  • Researchers from the University of Chicago determined that you reduce your personal contribution to global warming more by changing to a vegan diet than you do by switching to a Prius[56]
  • In 2017, over 15,000 scientists from 184 countries issued a "Warning to Humanity," promoting plant-based eating as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[57]
  • The Oxford Study was published in 2018 and called the most comprehensive analysis to date of its kind. Joseph Poore, who led the research said "A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth"—"It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car.”

Global Warming

A United Nations study in 2006, Livestock's Long Shadow, said that livestock accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but a study by World Watch Institute three years later said the U.N. report failed to consider some of the factors, and put the figure at 51%.[58][59]

Even at the lower number, animal agriculture contributes more to global warming than all cars, trucks, trains, buses, airplanes, and ships combined—more than the entire transportation sector, which the EPA pegs at 14% globally.[60]

Land Use

All forms of industrialized animal agriculture are land-intensive because livestock are typically fed on crops. Growing these crops, as well as grazing animals on pasture, uses a huge amount of land. In total, about 30 percent of the world's land is devoted to raising livestock.[58] And according to the wildlife protection charity WWF, raising cattle uses more land than all other farmed animals and crops combined.[61] This is leading to significant land degradation and biodiversity loss.[58]

Water Use

Beef production is hugely water-intensive, largely due to the amount of water required to grow the crops eaten by factory-farmed animals.[58] Researchers suggest that at least 2,500 gallons of water are required to produce a single pound of beef, and the figure could be as high as over 11,300 gallons.[62][63]

Deforestation

75 percent of deforestation in Brazil is due to the clearing land for cattle ranching. This was responsible for 50 percent of Brazil's greenhouse gas emissions from 2003-2008.[64] Forests are also cleared in order to grow crops, mainly to feed to livestock.[65]

Eutrophication

On factory farms, animals produce huge quantities of waste in a comparatively small area. For example, a farm of 2500 dairy cows can produce as much waste as a city of 411,000 people.[66] This waste is dumped untreated into large "lagoons" or spread across nearby fields. When lagoons overflow or waste runs off the fields, it can contaminate waterways and may even flow as far as the ocean. Since manure is high in nitrogen, it can cause algae in the water to bloom and use up much of the available oxygen — a process known as eutrophication. This creates what is known as a nitrogen-flooded ocean dead zone, where it is difficult for anything else to survive.

Species Extinction

Animal agriculture, including the production of beef and dairy products, contributes to species extinction in many ways. These include:[58]

  • Loss of habitat due to land-use change, for example deforestation.
  • The killing of predators to protect livestock.
  • Contamination of land and water by manure and pesticides/fertilizers (used to grow crops for livestock).
  • Increased global warming, as some species are not able to adapt quickly enough to survive.

Human Health, Nutrition

Food Safety

Pus in Milk

When cows develop mastitis (described previously), their bodies produce pus to fight the infection. Pus and skin shed from cows' udders are known as somatic cells, and they inevitably find their way into the milk.[67] In the USA, it is considered acceptable for a single milliliter of milk to contain up to 750,000 pus and skin cells.[68]

Deseases and Conditions =

Disease or Condition Risk Topic 1, etc.

<-- each topic could be meat or milk related, or a single topic could relate to both. -->

Animal Protein Risks

All animal protein, including the protein found in beef and cow milk, carries risks that are not associated with plant protein. A review by Dr. Sofia Ochoa cites 42 studies showing that animal protein:[69]

  • elevates hormone-insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which stimulates cell division and growth in both healthy and cancer cells and "has been consistently associated with increased cancer risk, proliferation, and malignancy"
  • "results in us having higher circulating levels of trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO)," which "injures the lining of our vessels, creates inflammation, and facilitates the formation of cholesterol plaques in our blood vessels"
  • causes the overproduction of the hormone fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23), which damages our blood vessels, can "lead to enlargement of the cardiac ventricle, and is associated with heart attacks, sudden death, and heart failure"
  • can result in the overabsorption of heme iron, causing the conversion of other oxidants into highly reactive free radicals that "can damage different cell structures like proteins, membranes, and DNA" (heme iron "has also been associated with many kinds of gastrointestinal cancers")
  • can result in a higher incidence of bone fractures because of animal protein's high concentrations of sulfur
  • contributes to atherosclerosis—plaques of cholesterol that accumulate in the lining of our vessels; this condition is far less common on a vegan diet because absorbable cholesterol is not found in plants

Social Consequences of Cattle Production

Worker Injustice 1, etc

Community Injustice 1, etc

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 “Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America’s Most-Trusted Online Dictionary.” Accessed November 12, 2019. https://www.merriam-webster.com/.
  2. “Cattle | Origin and Meaning of Cattle by Online Etymology Dictionary.” Accessed November 12, 2019. https://www.etymonline.com/word/cattle.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Robbins, Ja, Dm Weary, Ca Schuppli, and Mag von Keyserlingk. “Stakeholder Views on Treating Pain Due to Dehorning Dairy Calves.” Animal Welfare 24, no. 4 (November 14, 2015): 399–406. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.4.399.
  4. Spurlock, D.M., M.L. Stock, and J.F. Coetzee. “The Impact of 3 Strategies for Incorporating Polled Genetics into a Dairy Cattle Breeding Program on the Overall Herd Genetic Merit.” Journal of Dairy Science 97, no. 8 (August 2014): 5265–74. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7746.
  5. “Changes in Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the United States,1996-2007.” Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, July 2009. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/meat-preparation/veal-from-farm-to-table/ct_index.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 “Castration of Calves.” Accessed November 19, 2019. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/beef/facts/07-029.htm.
  7. Robertson, I.S., J.E. Kent, and V. Molony. “Effect of Different Methods of Castration on Behaviour and Plasma Cortisol in Calves of Three Ages.” Research in Veterinary Science 56, no. 1 (January 1994): 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-5288(94)90189-9.
  8. 8.0 8.1 “Literature Review on the Welfare Implications of Castration of Cattle .” American Veterinary Medical Association, July 15, 2014. https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Documents/castration-cattle-bgnd.pdf.
  9. Fordyce, G., Nj Beaman, Ar Laing, Pb Hodge, C. Campero, and Rk Shepherd. “An Evaluation of Calf Castration by Intra-Testicular Injection of a Lactic Acid Solution.” Australian Veterinary Journal 66, no. 9 (September 1989): 272–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1989.tb13950.x.
  10. Fisher, A D, M A Crowe, M E Alonso de la Varga, and W J Enright. “Effect of Castration Method and the Provision of Local Anesthesia on Plasma Cortisol, Scrotal Circumference, Growth, and Feed Intake of Bull Calves.” Journal of Animal Science 74, no. 10 (1996): 2336. https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74102336x.
  11. “Highlights of Beef 2007-08 Part I: Reference of Beef Cow-Calf Management Practices in the United States.” Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, August 2007. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/beefcowcalf/downloads/beef0708/Beef0708_is_PartI_Highlights_1.pdf.
  12. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K S, J M Stookey, T G Crowe, and B M Genswein. “Comparison of Image Analysis, Exertion Force, and Behavior Measurements for Use in the Assessment of Beef Cattle Responses to Hot-Iron and Freeze Branding.” Journal of Animal Science 76, no. 4 (1998): 972. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.764972x.
  13. Tucker, C. B., E. M. Mintline, J. Banuelos, K. A. Walker, B. Hoar, A. Varga, D. Drake, and D. M. Weary. “Pain Sensitivity and Healing of Hot-Iron Cattle Brands.” Journal of Animal Science 92, no. 12 (December 1, 2014): 5674–82. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-7887.
  14. Stull, Carolyn L., Michael A. Payne, Steven L. Berry, and Pamela J. Hullinger. “Evaluation of the Scientific Justification for Tail Docking in Dairy Cattle.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 220, no. 9 (May 2002): 1298–1303. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2002.220.1298.
  15. Fulwider, W.K., T. Grandin, B.E. Rollin, T.E. Engle, N.L. Dalsted, and W.D. Lamm. “Survey of Dairy Management Practices on One Hundred Thirteen North Central and Northeastern United States Dairies.” Journal of Dairy Science 91, no. 4 (April 2008): 1686–92. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0631.
  16. 16.0 16.1 Eicher, S.D., and J.W. Dailey. “Indicators of Acute Pain and Fly Avoidance Behaviors in Holstein Calves Following Tail-Docking.” Journal of Dairy Science 85, no. 11 (November 2002): 2850–58. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74372-5.
  17. Eicher, S.D., H.W. Cheng, A.D. Sorrells, and M.M. Schutz. “Short Communication: Behavioral and Physiological Indicators of Sensitivity or Chronic Pain Following Tail Docking.” Journal of Dairy Science 89, no. 8 (August 2006): 3047–51. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72578-4.
  18. Marchant-Forde, Jeremy N., Ruth M. Marchant-Forde, and Daniel M. Weary. “Responses of Dairy Cows and Calves to Each Other’s Vocalisations after Early Separation.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 78, no. 1 (August 2002): 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00082-5.
  19. Heartbreaking Footage Shows Baby Cows Stolen from Their Mothers. Mercy for Animals, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZQ3sl0xNC4&feature=youtu.be.
  20. Wagner, Kathrin, Daniel Seitner, Kerstin Barth, Rupert Palme, Andreas Futschik, and Susanne Waiblinger. “Effects of Mother versus Artificial Rearing during the First 12 Weeks of Life on Challenge Responses of Dairy Cows.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 164 (March 2015): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.12.010.
  21. citation needed
  22. citation needed
  23. citation needed
  24. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/meat-preparation/veal-from-farm-to-table/ct_index
  25. Kiley-Worthington, M. “The Behavior of Confined Calves Raised for Veal: Are These Animals Distressed?” International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 4, no. 3 (1983): 198–213.
  26. Webster, AJF. “Control of Infectious Disease in Housed Veal Calves.” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Veal Calf Production, no. 52 (March 1990): 103–12.
  27. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183541/per-capita-consumption-of-veal-in-the-us/
  28. Philip Gruber. “Veal Still Holds Possibilities Despite Challenges.” Lancaster Farming. Accessed November 22, 2019. https://www.lancasterfarming.com/farming/beef/veal-still-holds-possibilities-despite-challenges/article_36ec6466-7855-5dbf-9de7-bc3a537d95be.html.
  29. Levitt, Tom. “Dairy’s ‘Dirty Secret’: It’s Still Cheaper to Kill Male Calves than to Rear Them.” The Guardian, March 26, 2018, sec. Environment. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/dairy-dirty-secret-its-still-cheaper-to-kill-male-calves-than-to-rear-them.
  30. “Milk Quality, Milking Procedures, and Mastitis on U.S. Dairies, 2014.” Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, September 2016. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy14/Dairy14_dr_Mastitis.pdf.
  31. Siivonen, Jutta, Suvi Taponen, Mari Hovinen, Matti Pastell, B. Joop Lensink, Satu Pyörälä, and Laura Hänninen. “Impact of Acute Clinical Mastitis on Cow Behaviour.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132, no. 3–4 (July 2011): 101–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.04.005.
  32. 32.0 32.1 Constable, Peter D. “Overview of Bovine Secondary Recumbency - Musculoskeletal System.” Veterinary Manual. Accessed November 22, 2019. https://www.msdvetmanual.com/musculoskeletal-system/bovine-secondary-recumbency/overview-of-bovine-secondary-recumbency.
  33. Webster, John. Animal Welfare. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2000. 88, 139-140.
  34. “ANTE-MORTEM LIVESTOCK INSPECTION .” Washington DC: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE, September 13, 2007. https://www.aamp.com/documents/Directive6100-1.pdf.
  35. Slaughterhouse Investigation: Cruel and Unhealthy Practices. Humane Society of the United States, 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlhSQ5z4V4&feature=youtu.be.
  36. “Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program – Phase II and Food Safety and Inspection Service Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, and Advanced Meat Recovery Products - Phase III .” Washington, D.C.: USDA Office of Inspector General, January 2006. https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf.
  37. Pryce, J. E., R. F. Veerkamp, R. Thompson, W. G. Hill, and G. Simm. “Genetic Aspects of Common Health Disorders and Measures of Fertility in Holstein Friesian Dairy Cattle.” Animal Science 65, no. 3 (December 1997): 353–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800008559.
  38. Webster, John. Animal Welfare. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2000, 141. http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4661916.
  39. Consumer Reports “Labels.” Greener Choices (blog). Accessed July 6, 2019. http://greenerchoices.org/labels/
  40. Global Animal Partnership.” Open Philanthropy Project, March 26, 2016. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare/global-animal-partnership-general-support
  41. Consumer Reports “Labels.” Greener Choices (blog). Accessed July 6, 2019. http://greenerchoices.org/labels/
  42. Global Animal Partnership.” Open Philanthropy Project, March 26, 2016. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare/global-animal-partnership-general-support
  43. “Pasture Raised” Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, April 4, 2017, http://greenerchoices.org/2017/04/26/pasture-raised/
  44. “Labeling Guideline on Documentation Needed to Substantiate Animal Raising Claims for Label Submissions.” USDA FSIS, n.d. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bf170761-33e3-4a2d-8f86-940c2698e2c5/Label-Approval-Guide.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
  45. Whisnant, DVM, Patricia. “FAQ Grass Fed Beef.” American Grass Fed Beef (blog). Accessed October 25, 2018. https://www.americangrassfedbeef.com/faq-grass-fed-beef.asp
  46. “Labeling Guideline on Documentation Needed to Substantiate Animal Raising Claims for Label Submissions.” USDA FSIS, n.d. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bf170761-33e3-4a2d-8f86-940c2698e2c5/Label-Approval-Guide.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
  47. Whoriskey, Peter. “Should ‘USDA Organic’ Animals Be Treated More Humanely? The Trump Administration Just Said No.” Washington Post, December 15, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/15/should-usda-organic-animals-be-treated-more-humanely-the-trump-administration-just-said-no/
  48. “Do You Care about Animal Welfare on Organic Farms?” Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, February 6, 2018. http://greenerchoices.org/2018/02/06/care-animal-welfare-organic-farms/
  49. “Certified Humane Raised and Handled.” Consumer Reports—Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, January 30, 2017. http://greenerchoices.org/2017/01/30/certified-humane/
  50. “Global Animal Partnership.” Open Philanthropy Project, March 26, 2016.  href="https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare/global-animal-partnership-general-support">https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare/global-animal-partnership-general-support
  51. “Global Animal Partnership Step 5+.” Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, May 23, 2017. http://greenerchoices.org/2017/05/23/global-animal-partnership-step-5/
  52. “American Humane Certified.” Consumer Reports—Greener Choices | Consumer Reports, January 11, 2017. http://greenerchoices.org/2017/01/11/american-humane-certified/
  53. 53.0 53.1 53.2 53.3 53.4 53.5 53.6 53.7 53.8 Marino, Lori, and Kristin Allen. “The Psychology of Cows.” Animal Behavior and Cognition 4, no. 4 (November 1, 2017): 474–98. https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.04.04.06.2017.
  54. Rescued Dairy Cow Hides Newborn Because She Thinks All Humans Steal Calves, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDq4F4plSMQ&feature=youtu.be.
  55. citation needed
  56. Gidon Eshel, and Pamela A. Martin. “Diet, Energy, and Global Warming.” Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 2005. Accessed November 14, 2019. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1
  57. needs citation
  58. 58.0 58.1 58.2 58.3 58.4 Steinfeld, Henning, Pierre Gerber, T. D. Wassenaar, Vincent Castel, Mauricio Rosales M. , and Cees de Haan. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006.
  59. Goodland, R, and J Anhang. “ Livestock and Climate Change: What If the Key Actors in Climate Change Are... Cows, Pigs, and Chickens?” Washington: Worldwatch Institute, 2009.
  60. US EPA, OAR. “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.” Overviews and Factsheets. US EPA, January 12, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data.
  61. World Wildlife Fund. “Beef | Industries | WWF.” Accessed November 25, 2019. https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/beef.
  62. Robbins, John. Diet for a New America. Tiburon, Calif: H J Kramer, 1998, 367.
  63. Pimentel, David, Bonnie Berger, David Filiberto, Michelle Newton, Benjamin Wolfe, Elizabeth Karabinakis, Steven Clark, Elaine Poon, Elizabeth Abbett, and Sudha Nandagopal. “Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues.” BioScience 54, no. 10 (2004): 909. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0909:WRAAEI]2.0.CO;2.
  64. Bustamante, Mercedes M. C., Carlos A. Nobre, Roberto Smeraldi, Ana P. D. Aguiar, Luis G. Barioni, Laerte G. Ferreira, Karla Longo, Peter May, Alexandre S. Pinto, and Jean P. H. B. Ometto. “Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Cattle Raising in Brazil.” Climatic Change 115, no. 3–4 (December 2012): 559–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0443-3.
  65. “Plan B Updates - 86: Growing Demand for Soybeans Threatens Amazon Rainforest | EPI.” Accessed November 24, 2019. http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2009/update86.
  66. “Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, May 2004.
  67. Malek dos Reis, Carolina Barbosa, Juliana Regina Barreiro, Lucinéia Mestieri, Marco Aurélio de Felício Porcionato, and Marcos Veiga dos Santos. “Effect of Somatic Cell Count and Mastitis Pathogens on Milk Composition in Gyr Cows.” BMC Veterinary Research 9, no. 1 (April 8, 2013): 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-9-67.
  68. “Determining U.S. Milk Quality Using Bulk-Tank Somatic Cell Counts, 2013.” Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, September 2014. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy_monitoring/BTSCC_2013infosheet.pdf.
  69. Ochoa, MD, Sofia Pineda. “7 Ways Animal Protein Is Damaging Your Health.” Forks Over Knives, December 31, 2016. Accessed October 22, 2019. https://www.forksoverknives.com/animalproteindangers/.

Meta

This article was originally authored by Bethany Chester with contributions by Greg Fuller . The contents may have been edited since that time by others.