Symposium review: Considerations for the future of dairy cattle housing: An animal welfare perspective

Abstract

Many contemporary dairy cattle housing practices are at odds with societal perceptions of positive animal welfare. The public (i.e., those external to the dairy industry) typically emphasizes the importance of naturalness for dairy cattle, such as through provision of pasture, freedom of movement, and the ability to interact socially with conspecifics. Yet, in the United States, the majority of lactating dairy cattle are reportedly housed without any access to pasture, and almost 39% of dairy farms use tiestalls, which restrict movement and social interactions. In addition to being in conflict with public expectations, a lack of pasture access and restrictive housing systems are also in conflict with the animals' own motivations, which can adversely affect their welfare. For example, dairy cattle are highly motivated to access pasture and show a reduction in oral stereotypies when allowed on pasture after periods of tethering. Calves housed without social contact have cognitive deficits and exhibit increased fear responses to novelty. We argue that the long-term sustainability of the dairy industry will depend on the extent to which housing systems reflect public concerns and the animals' priorities. The adoption of technologies, such as automated feeders and remote monitoring systems, may represent a means to practically promote the animals' natural behavior while simultaneously improving individualized care. Although older generations of the public may consider technological solutions to be a further deviation from naturalness and a departure from dairy farming's agrarian roots, the definition of "naturalness" for younger generations may well have expanded to include technology. As the buying power shifts to these younger generations, the adoption of technologies that promote natural cattle behaviors may be one means toward reconciling the disconnect between public perceptions of animal welfare and contemporary dairy farming practices.

Perspectives on the Management of Surplus Dairy Calves in the United States and Canada

“…Surprisingly little research has assessed public values about surplus dairy calves. When asked about food animal agriculture in general, the public strongly values naturalness, such as pasture access as well as indoor environments that allow for the expression of natural behavior, freedom of movement and socializing with companions [reviewed by (117,118)]. The current system for rearing surplus dairy calves is heavily reliant on unnatural housing (e.g., indoor housing with mechanical ventilation or outdoor housing with low space allowance), isolated social environments (e.g., individual pens), and inadequate feeding programs (low milk allowances compared to what they would drink from the dam) which are in direct contrast to public values.…”

The Dispensable Surplus Dairy Calf: Is This Issue a “Wicked Problem” and Where Do We Go From Here?

“…The status quo of how surplus calves are cared for has, as argued above, primarily been brought about in part because these animals have an inherent low economic value and in part because the dairy industry is focused on the milk production aspects of their industry. However, the rising value attributed to the maintenance of public trust in the dairy industry has initiated discussions about the need to improve the way surplus calves are managed (45,47). Commonly recognized challenges facing agriculture more broadly include a general public that is becoming increasingly disconnected from food production (48), combined with an increase in concern about how food is produced (49,50).…”

A new systemic approach to characterize agroecological systems

“…Since its beginnings, the definition of agroecology has broadened and now addresses the entire food system, understood in its multiple dimensions (Francis et al, 2003) and the multiplicity of social, political and economic issues and actors involved in agricultural transformation (Stassart andJamar, 2008, Doré andBellon, 2019). Agroecological systems need to be productive, input-efficient, socially equitable and economically viable, all at the same time (Altieri, 1995). With a view to reducing environmental impacts and responding to societal expectations and current concerns, the aim of agroecology is therefore to better integrate ecological processes into agricultural systems by replacing chemical and energy inputs by natural processes and by improving biogeochemical cycling (minerals, energy, water).…”

“…The global livestock sector currently uses 30% of the planet's land and 32% of its water and generates 18% of greenhouse gas emissions (Steinfeld et al, 2006, Herrero et al, 2015. These production models also draw criticisms from society concerning animal welfare (Webster et al, 2015, Beaver et al, 2020 and the origin and quality of animal feed (Jacquot et al, 2019). Numerous research studies have shown that animals are sensitive beings endowed with cognitive abilities (De Fontenay, 1998).…”