Mega Dairies – Mega Problems

What is a Mega Dairy?

There is no precise definition of a mega-dairy. A farm of 1000 cows grazed on a suitable acreage,
milked once a day and over-wintered in sheds is not a mega-dairy. In
contrast, the same number of cows held in sheds 24/7 all year, feed on a
diet to increase milk yield
and milked three times a day… that’s a Mega Dairy. It could be just 500 cows and it would still be a Mega Dairy but the ecomomics make this unlikely to happen. In reality a
Mega Dairy tends to be 1000+ cows. The Chinese have recently built one that holds 100,000 cows … reportedly to serve the russian market.

The Problems with Mega Dairies – an overview

Large intensive dairy operations where 1000’s of cows are kept in large
sheds and fed high protein diets to increase milk yield are increasingly
common.
The approach used to management these units is often referred to as
‘zero-grazing’. This simply means the cows spend their lives in these
sheds and are never
allowed out to graze in a field and are fed a diet designed to optimise
milk yields which is why there are also called CAFOs (Confined Animal
Feeding Operations).

This approach to dairy farming has some inescapable and serious problems
that fall broadly into three categories: Economic, Environmental and
Animal Welfare.
These are just some of the issues:

Economic

  • The race to reduce costs through factory farms has resulted in a spiral of over supply leading to a collapse in milk prices.

  • The low milk prices are driving smaller traditional dairy farms out of
    business but whose exit has little effect on the over supply.

Environmental

  • The slurry from so many cows is very difficult to deal with and leads to an enormous amount of environmental damage.

  • There is increasing concern about the impact on health to people who live near to where the slurry is stored or spread.

Animal Welfare

  • The cows live in an unnaturally confined space that leads to all sorts
    of stress for these social herd animals. There is room to move about but
    it is limited.

  • They are part of a 24 hour operation and so are not afforded a natural
    diurnal rhythm of existence which again can lead to stress and to
    depression.

  • The cows are fed on a very unnatural diet that leads to problems that need to be managed with drugs.

  • Reduced life expectancy of the cows

Economics

The problems began some time ago. Back in 2009 the Animal Welfare Council published a report in which it states:

“The profitability of dairying has been in steady decline for the past
decade. In 1997, the average gross margin on dairy farms was £933 per
cow; this had fallen to £696 per cow in 2007. The reasons for the
decline in profitability are complex but include sterling’s exchange
rate, the milk quota system, the price paid by milk buyers and
processors and the greater exposure to commodity markets.”

This short paragraph says it all. More recently the dairy industry has
taken another hit due to the loss of access to significant markets in
both Russian and China. (see refs 1 and 2)

The assumption is that to address the decline in profitablity we need to
employ the economies of scale of a large dairy. Supporters of this type
of farming claim this is the only way to make diary farming viable and
then go on to argue that the cows have a better and more comfortable
life than they would under a more natural regime.
There may be some truth in the need for some economies of scale or the
use of modern techniques for managing a dairy but this should never be
at the expense of Animal Welfare or the Environment.

What is happening now is a spiral towards larger and larger indoor (zero-grazing) herds that is exacerbating the over-supply problem. The crash in milk prices is putting small traditional farmers out of business, with all the attendant human suffering and loss. Herds that have been built up over generations and are much loved are destroyed. This vicious circle needs to be broken and the trend reversed. We should know by now that markets are not self-correcting and often need to be closely regulated. But the only change on the horizon is the setting up of a ‘futures’ market to address some of the volatility in prices.

Environment

Unlike the Animal Welfare issues, the environmental issues are solvable but cost money.

The excreta from 1000+ cows has to go somewhere. Initially it is stored
in large lagoons (like the one we are objecting to) along with diary
parlour washings and other waste. The washings can contain
various chemicals for disinfecting the parlour. The resulting slurry is a
toxic brew, the detailed chemistry of which is not well understood. At
its most basic,
an open slurry lagoon will give off four main gases: methane, ammonia,
carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. These gases can cause considerable
environmental damage both
locally and globally. Methane is a global warming gas that is ten times
more potent than carbon dioxide. However, these problems can be
mitigated by putting a cover
on the lagoon. This can reduce the gas emmission by up to 90%. But a
large lagoon, typically 80m x 80m, is very expensive to cover. A
floating cover for a lagoon
this big could set you back £200,000. So many lagoons are not covered.

What should happen next is that the slurry is fed to an anaerobic
biodigestor which addresses many of the environmental issues. They
digestor provides energy that can be
used on the farm or fed back into the grid, and the resulting digestate
is far more benign. The problem is that a biodigestor, that can consume
the output of a 1000 cows, is
very expensive. The capital costs would be well in excess of £500,000.
So on most farms the slurry from the lagoon is spread on fields at
regular intervals, usually 2 or 4 times a year.
This is when the real damage takes place.

Fields that used to be pasture would have supported a range of ground
nesting birds, wild-flowers, insects and would have enjoyed a balanced
and healthy ecosystem.
But once the spreading begins these same fields become alien territory
for most wildlife. The fields are repeatedly covered or injected with
slurry which can kill
microbial life in the soil and greatly reduces the insect population.
Over time there can be a build of various elements, like copper from the
parlour washings.
Run-off can pollute local water-courses, and the regular traversing by
large machines destroy the small remaining chance for ground nesting
birds.

Injection into the soil (as oppose to spraying) is meant to prevent
odour, the release of damaging ammonia and methane and stop run-off. But
in reality the pipes
to the injectors often leak and produce an aerosol that can travel a
great distance causing damage to hedge rows, lichens, etc. Also,
injection will only prevent
run-off in ideal conditions. Often the ground is already wet or rain
falls soon after. There are regulations that determine when and how much
slurry is spread.
But these are weak and while they help to curtail excesses they do not
address the real long term issues. It is not a pretty story.

Pathogens from Slurry

Slurry from dairy cattle can contain a range of pathogens like E.Coli-0157:H7, Salmonella, Cryptosporidium, etc. In a traditional muck heap, the composting effect will raise the temperature sufficiently so that after a week most of the pathogens will have been removed. In a slurry lagoon this does not happen. So, when the slurry is spread on the land there is increasing evidence of so called ‘pathways’ whereby they can travel a great distance and infect wild-life and enter the food chain. Anaerobic digestors have a very similar effect as muck heap as the process generates heat and destroys the pathogens.

Animal Welfare

The Five Freedoms was a concept developed some 30 years ago and is still
used as a yardstick of Animal Wefare today. They state that an animal
has the right to Freedom from:

  • Hunger and thirst (by providing fresh water and a nutritious diet)

  • Discomfort (by providing good shelter and a comfortable resting area)

  • Pain, injury and disease (by prevention and effective diagnosis and treatment)

  • Fear and distress (by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering)

  • Express normal behaviour (by giving them sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind)

Mega Dairies can fail all five of these tests.

Hunger and Thirst

The main issue here is the diet. Zero-grazing operations feed the cows
“concentrates” to increase production. For instance, the feed can
include soya-bean, grains and fish-meal.
None of these foods are what a herbivorous ruminant would naturally
choose to eat. These unnatural foods can cause acid conditions in the
gut which causes great discomfort
for the cow and can, over time, lead to chronic conditions which can
then manifest themselves as problems like lameness. (see below)

In 2009, the European Food Safety Agency published an important report
called “Scientific Opinion on the Welfare of Dairy Cows” in which it
states:
“If dairy cows are not kept on pasture for parts of the year, ie they
are permanently on a zero-grazing system, there is an increased risk of
lameness,
hoof problems, teat tramp, mastitis, metritis, dystocia, ketosis,
retained placenta and some bacterial infections”.

Pain, injury and disease

The unnatural diet, the lack of exercise, the stress of being held in
sheds 24/7 all contribute to the many health problems.
These cows are being pushed to their physiological and psychological
limits which predispose them to infections and chronic conditions that
then need to be managed.
Lameness is a huge problem in zero-grazing units and if it is not
treated quickly the pain can be severe and enduring.
The other big problem is mastitis which is an inflamation of the udder
and teats. It is a very painful condition for the cow and is very
common.

Then after about 6 years the cow is killed. That is after what is about a
quarter of her natural life span. By then the regime will have taken
its toll and she
will be worn-out and her productivity will have fallen below a threshold
of profitability.

Discomfort + Fear and distress + Express normal behaviour

The Mootel seems to have been first mooted by Mr Peter Willes during the
Nocton episode in 2009/10 along with another catch phrase “Cows don’t
belong in fields”. The Mootel
argument suggests that, given the choice, a cow will chose to be in one
of Mr Willes’ sheds where she is fed, her bed changed regularly, is out
of the rain and where
there is a vet on hand to look after her health.

The problem with this argument is that the cows do not have any choice!
It is simply a gross assumption that makes good “copy”, but is not
backed up with any evidence.
In fact there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Traditional (ie non-intensive) farmers will over-winter their cows
indoors and feed them on the forage they will have harvested and stored
during the summer.
Then, in the early spring, the cows are let out into the fields and they
will run and kick their hind legs and demonstrated that they are very
happy to be ‘Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free
at last!’ (apologies to Martin Luther King)… as in these videos:

And yet more videos of the spring release:
  happy cows 1,
  happy cows 2,
  happy cows 3,
  happy cows 4,

Recent reports by both the Farm Animal Welfare Council and European Food
Safety Authority have highlighted the continued welfare issues relating
to dairy cattle, especially those housed in large sheds.

Cows do belong in fields… because that is where they are happiest. An
open field with no possibility of shelter is not a comfortable place
when the wind and rain is driving. So yes, fields should have shelter
and most don’t. But a cow is not a stupid animal and would seek the
shelter of the Mootel if it could in those circumstances… but when the
rain stopped they would check-out and return to the field!

Conversely, look at the cows that are held under the zero-grazing
regime. They are well looked after as one would expect as it is the
operations interest to keep the cows healthy. However, their diet is
unnatural and to keep the cows healthy requires constant monitoring and
frequent intervention.
The get very little exercise, live an entirely unnatural existance and
in the end have a reduce life expectancy. But perhaps the most important
aspect of their health that is overlooked is their mental well being.

Cows are intelligent sentient beings like most higher mammals. For instance, Dr Krista McLennan’s research has shown how cows make long lasting frienships. This video shows a cow upset by losing her friend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1h8iHpL6jM

The Moral Argument

Factory farms and Mega Dairies in particular raise some fundamental
moral questions about how we as consumers should take responsibility for
what we eat.

The moral framework of a society is not static but evolves with new
knowledge. The knowledge we have today about the origins of thought and
consciousness must inform the moral judgements we make about how we
treat animals and how we expect them to be treated on farms.

For instance, the study of artificial neural networks and the more
general discipline of artificial life demonstrates that even an entity
with very few neurons can display very complex behaviours. A famous
example is Prof Widrow’s truck-backer-upper which was a network of 100
artificial neurons that was trained to control backing up a truck with a
trailer to a loading platform. Anybody who has tried backing a trailer
knows how tricky this is. This was done with just 100 neurons.

Just stop and think for a moment about the complex behaviour of a fly.
How does it do that? The point is that even the most basic life-form can
display very complex behaviour. This can be demonstrated with very
simple artificial-life programs.
These illustrate how complex systems display so called emergent
properties. So where you have complexity then discernable properties
will emerge, you will not just get a jumble of unrelated
characteristics. This is the basis of consciousness. It is not rooted
in any particular aspect of the brain, it is a consequence of both its
organisation and its complexity.

A cow is a billion times more complex than an AI experiment. They do
feel emotion, loss, fear, pleasure. There is a great deal in the
literature to support this view (Prof Marc Bekoff, Prof Marian Dawkins,
etc, etc). They have different perceptions, needs and priorities to you
and me but they have a will and a desire to live … like you and me.

I have a dog, a boxer… he is a sensitive creature. He is some times
happy and playful, some times unhappy or depressed. He is driven by
perceptions and priorities which I often do not understand but he is
without any doubt a sentient being.

Human society is constantly demonstrating how bad individuals are at
understanding or accepting different perspectives to their own. This
within our own species. It is therefore not surprising that we seem in
general to be unable to see those outside our species with anything but a
utilitarian view.
But as a society we have become increasingly aware that while many
animals experience the world through a very different prism of senses to
our own they are nontheless
sentient and emotional beings.

The arguments about the practical benefits of intensive dairy farming
are mostly logically flawed or couched in terms of an emotional
claim to an understanding of animal welfare that only the annointed can
possess. I was brought up on a chicken farm and have lived most
of my life in the country. I did some unspeakable things to chickens
back then. It was the norm. I have learnt how wrong it was as part of
the same journey that society as a whole has taken. Mega Farms are
therefore anachronistic. It should now be self-evident that to hold 1000
cows in a shed for years on end and
feed them a diet that nature did not design them for is no longer
acceptable. It is immoral.

The mega dairy in China of 100,000 cows is something the world should be truly ashamed of… and angry about!

References

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *