Animal Welfare Implications of Beef Industry Practices

Animal welfare in beef cattle is becoming increasingly important to consumers.

A survey comparing the views of animal welfare betwixt consumers and beef cattle producers led past researchers at Kansas State Academy reported 2-thirds of consumers are "concerned most the welfare of beef cattle in the U.Southward."

Surprisingly, only 43 percent of consumer respondents did not disagree with the statement, "Low beefiness prices are more important than the well-being of cattle."

And when asked their level of "understanding" or "disagreement" associated with the statement, "I believe that cattle producers face up a trade-off betwixt profitability and animal welfare," but xx percent of consumer respondents "disagreed." Clearly a significant portion of consumers are concerned nearly brute welfare and believe producers have to bargain with a difficult balance between profitability and animal welfare.

Contrasting perspectives on welfare

In contempo years, ii organizations that arroyo animal welfare from two very unlike perspectives produced documents that evaluated beast welfare concerns in beef cattle production. One included an "inward look" at the beef industry via a beef checkoff-funded white paper involving university researchers in the U.S. and Canada who identified key gaps in knowledge and priorities for farther inquiry.

The other document was produced by the activist organisation Humane Order of the United States (HSUS) and characterized major concerns held by HSUS staff related to beefiness cattle product.

Interestingly, the beef checkoff-funded paper indicated that the practice of precipitous weaning needs to be addressed via research from an animal welfare perspective, especially in regard to determining all-time management practices for non-abrupt weaning methods and implications of such practices, to help producers evaluate the practicality of such a change.

Yet the vast bulk of the paper focused on a number of issues including product technologies (e.g., beta agonists) and on-agricultural output practices (e.one thousand., castration) of greater concern to nearly consumers.

In contrast, the HSUS document identified "precipitous weaning" (versus low-stress or natural weaning) as i of their five major concerns, with the other four beingness castration, horn removal, branding and long-distance transportation.

Much of the focus related to weaning addressed method used and calf age when weaning is well-nigh often done.

The majority of the HSUS newspaper summarized scientific studies into painful procedures; all the same, the unnamed authors of the HSUS document did acknowledge that the beef industry does not have the same welfare challenges nowadays with other species.

In fact, they stated "While many other commercially produced animals used in agriculture, such equally pigs and chickens, are raised in indoor confinement facilities, young calves in the beefiness industry are largely permitted to roam outdoors, which in comparison, is a substantial welfare improvement."

Weaning concerns among retailers

In recent years one national retailer has taken a stand up on weaning practices in the beef industry. Whole Foods, through their enforcement of standards produced by the Global Fauna Partnership's 1 through five+ pace rating system, requires that beefiness cattle be weaned at a minimum age of 6 months for steps 1 through 4, and 8 months for step v.

For their elite step five+ rating, but natural weaning of calves is allowed. However, GAP standards practise non address weaning method among the cattle that supply beef into their steps one through five.

Similarly, the Brute Welfare Approved standards program created past the Fauna Welfare Institute indicates a minimum weaning age of six months, with a herd average of 8 months, is required in their programme based on published evidence that cortisol and norepinephrine can be elevated in calves weaned abruptly at 6 months onetime.

Notwithstanding, similar GAP, no standards accost weaning methods for beef marketed through their label-based program.

Alternative weaning methods

Only in the final few years has noticeable creature welfare-related research into weaning strategies occurred. Conspicuously, sharp removal of calves from their dams prior to "natural weaning" leads to a sudden dietary alter since milk is removed from the nutrition and requires breaking the cow-calf bond.

Yet, weaning is as well necessary to enable dams to amass torso condition and achieve calving intervals of close to 365 days in social club to produce a calf annually. Natural weaning would reduce the likelihood of cows rebreeding at a reasonable rate over time and significantly reduce the efficiency of beefiness product.

Maybe the biggest challenge with abrupt weaning is that the majority of calves are often instantly exposed to disease challenges and other physical stressors such as transportation, commingling, etc. through the marketing process, which is done immediately post-weaning on most operations.

Beyond abrupt weaning, there are two predominant alternatives used by a minority of producers: 1) fenceline weaning, and 2) two-stage weaning. Fenceline weaning involves the physical separation of calves via a sturdy debate to block nursing just allows cows and calves to exist in shut proximity.

Two-stage weaning starts with the employ of low-cost plastic olfactory organ flaps (stage 1) to preclude nursing but enable calves to stay with their dams.

Most manufacturers' recommendations are for flaps to exist in place for a brusque flow of approximately 4 to v days to avoid soring of calves' noses. Phase 2 then involves separating calves from their dams and removing flaps.

This strategy requires working the calves in gild to place the flaps and may not exist consistent with moo-cow-calf operations that are challenged with gathering calves an boosted fourth dimension (i.e., Western range ranches), particularly if it is in improver to preconditioning calves three weeks prior to weaning.

Long-term furnishings unknown

At that place is scientific prove that lower-stress weaning methods tin upshot in a reduction in stress-related behaviors associated with weaning (i.east., tearful, walking, etc.), especially in calves.

And increased curt-term weight gains post-weaning have been documented. However, long-term benefits of culling weaning methods have not been conspicuously documented, including furnishings on cattle health, feedyard performance and efficiency and carcass quality.

In fact, some evidence indicates that carcass weight, marbling score and finish-production eating quality tin exist positively influenced by weaning calves before than vi months of age, although weaning methods have not been closely evaluated in these areas.

Ultimately, consumers will continue to be increasingly concerned about how cattle are treated within the beef industry. It is likely that other on-farm practices being used (eastward.g., castration, branding, dehorning) will be nether much more scrutiny than weaning method and age.

Until scientific research can clearly signal the impacts of weaning methods on longer-term welfare and profitability, which is very difficult to do, it's unlikely that manufacture weaning practices will alter significantly based on a lack of difference in documented profitability.

References omitted but are available upon request. Click here to electronic mail an editor.

PHOTO:Some show shows carcass weight, marbling score and beef quality can be positively influenced past weaning calves earlier than 6 months. Staff photo.

• Jason G. Ahola

• Associate Professor – Beef Management Systems
• Colorado Land University
• Email Jason One thousand. Ahola

gomezsekhas.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.progressivecattle.com/topics/herd-health/animal-welfare-implications-of-abruptly-weaning-beef-calves

Share this post