I’m writing in response to the recent Legislative Alert #10 issued by the
National Grange. My grandparents and parents worked on family-scale dairies
when I was growing up and I can assure you that what I see when I drive by a
dairy today is scarcely what I remember about those dairies. I admit to a
strong bias toward pasture-raising as being better for the animals, the land
and most importantly, the farmer and consumers. I believe that if we were to
truly adhere to the founding principles of the Patrons of Husbandry and to
the instructions given to the farmer in the Manual of Subordinate Granges
regarding the treatment of animals that there would be no confusion about
the agricultural practices we would consider worthy of our support. I’ve
researched the highlighted points from the alert and have included the data
I’ve found that SUPPORTS the information given in “You Can with Beakman and
Jax”.
I feel that the National Grange agricultural policy, as it is, would
encourage us to stand up to the corporations and factory farms that raise
animals in inhumane conditions and denounce instead of trying to rationalize
those practices. I believe that our policy also encourages us to promote
local, sustainable, humane farming practices. In my own state of Oregon,
there is an organization that does just that, it is called Friends of Family
Farmers I wish I could say the Grange does as much as FOFF do to help real
family farmers with legislative policy and other resources in our state.
Following the points you included in your alert, you’ll find excerpts
regarding modern dairy practices from a website called the Sustainable Table
and The Welfare of Animals in Meat, Egg and Dairy Industries from the Humane
Society of the United States. Both of them are well researched pieces and
I’ve left the research footnotes for the excepts at the bottom of this
letter for you. I’ve also provided links to the full reports if you or
anyone else would like to use them in your policy making decisions.
I hope that our National Grange policymakers can become better informed as
to the changes afoot in the sustainable food movement. There are a number of
Granges in Oregon that see sustainable, local agriculture as one of their
main organizing purposes. We look to our agricultural past as the way to a
promising future free of dependence on foreign oil and foreign, poisonous
inputs to our animals and our soil.
Almost all dairy cows are raised in factories where they’re fed surplus corn
and soy – not the grass that is a cow’s natural food.”
“Factory cows get more diseases, so they are medicated constantly. Their
food includes drugs like antibiotics and hormones. They also get gas, which
can hurt their 4-part stomachs.”
“Factory cows live from 3-4 years before they die. Cows that eat grasses in
meadows live and produce milk for up to 20 years. They’re ones farmers name
and don’t number.”
The answer provided to the questions implied that animals actually do give
birth at 15 months of age when the industry average for the age at first
calving is about 24 months
From the website Sustainable Table
“In a natural environment, ruminant animals, like cows, subsist on a diet of
mixed grasses. For industrial milk facilities aiming to increase production
with limited cost and space, pastureland becomes an unnecessary expense.
Pasture grasses are replaced with an unnatural diet high in fat and
protein-rich grains to increase milk production, and to replace energy lost
by producing such large quantities of milk. When fed large amounts of grains
like soy and corn (often genetically engineered and heavily sprayed with
pesticides)3132, this diet can cause cows to develop digestive problems and
diseases that can lead to death. To keep animals alive, a continuous low
dose of antibiotics, in conjunction with methods to relieve gas caused by
lack of rumen use, is necessary33.
Perhaps the most drastic measure dairies take to boost milk production is
the use of artificial hormones such as recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone,
rBGH, or rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin). Approved by the FDA in
1993, and produced by Monsanto under the name Posilac®, rBGH’s effects are
similar to human growth hormone or steroids. RBGH is said to increase
per-cow milk yield by 10-15 percent34. Cows treated with these hormones
often develop serious health complications, including lameness, udder
infections (mastitis), reproductive problems, including deformed calves,
resulting in additional increases in antibiotic injections35.”
From the Humane Society of the United States Report:The Welfare of Animals
in the Meat, Egg, and Dairy Industries
Dairy cows endure annual cycles of artificial insemination, mechanized
milking for 10 out of 12 months(61) (including 7 months of their 9-month
pregnancies), and giving birth. The cows are routinely given hormones to get
the highest milk yield possible. According to Dr. John Webster, “The amount
of work done by the [dairy] cow in peak lactation is immense. To achieve a
comparable high work rate a human would have to jog for about 6 hours a day,
every day.”(62) This rigorous cycle overburdens the cows, who are considered
“productive” for only two years(63) and are slaughtered when four years
old.(64)
A byproduct of the dairy industry is a calf per year per cow. According to a
U.S. Department of Agriculture fact sheet, “Male dairy calves are used in
the veal industry. Dairy cows must give birth to continue producing milk,
but male dairy calves are of little or no value to the dairy farmer.”(65) As
a result, within their first few days of life, the calves are taken from
their mothers.(66,67) Females will likely join the dairy line, while some
males are sold to veal farmers. Indeed, the veal industry would not exist
without the dairy industry. Calves raised for veal are intensively confined
and tethered by the neck in individual stalls so small they can’t turn
around during their entire 16- to 18-week lives before slaughter.(68) Veal
crates are widely known for their inherent cruelty. As with conventional
battery cages and gestation crates, veal crates are being phased out in
Europe, yet are still in use in the United States.
Cattle suffer the same mistreatment as pigs during both their transport and
slaughter.
Productivity and Welfare
Animal agribusiness representatives often claim that it is in their own
interest to treat animals well, and a common defense of factory farming is
that “only happy animals produce.” While there are some instances where
improving animal welfare would also improve the bottom line, unfortunately,
this is not always the case.
According to poultry welfare expert Dr. Joy Mench: “It is now generally
agreed that good productivity and health are not necessarily indicators of
good welfare….Productivity…is often measured at the level of the unit (e.g.
number of eggs or egg mass per hen-housed), and individual animals may be in
a comparatively poor state of welfare even though productivity within the
unit may be high.”(74)
Farm animal welfare expert Dr. Donald Broom states: “[E]fforts to achieve
earlier and faster growth, greater production per individual, efficient feed
conversion and partitioning, and increased prolificacy are the causes of
some of the worst animal welfare problems.”(75)
And agricultural ethicist Dr. Bernard Rollin asserts: “[I]n industrial
agriculture, this link between productivity and well-being is severed. When
productivity as an economic metric is applied to the whole operation, the
welfare of the individual animal is ignored.”(76)
Conclusion
There are no federal animal welfare laws regulating the treatment of the
billions of animals raised for meat, eggs, and milk, while they’re on the
farm. Further, while all 50 states have cruelty statutes, most explicitly
exempt common farming practices, no matter how abusive. As a result, farm
animals suffer immensely as, within much of animal agribusiness, the welfare
of the animals is severely compromised by customary factory farming
practices, as the economic interests of the producer often conflict with—and
generally take priority over—the animals’ well-being.
Fraternally,
Randi Embree
Macleay Grange #293
Grange Policy
The Delegates at the 143rd Annual Convention of the National Grange adopted
the following policy related to responding to false, misleading, and
inaccurate statements about modern agricultural practices utilized by
today’s family farmers and ranchers:
“ The National Grange supports public relation programs that disseminate
accurate information on the efficiency and productivity of American
agriculture as well as the contributions it has made in providing an
adequate supply of food and fiber, and the important role the food and
agricultural industry plays in the nation’s economy. A coalition of farm and
commodity organizations working together on common problems is in the best
interest of agriculture and rural communities….We will cooperate with and
support the efforts of other agricultural organizations in their educational
programs pertaining to false, unproven, and misleading statements about the
production and safety of agricultural commodities in order to present a true
picture of environmentally safe farm and ranch best management practices.”
31, 32.D. G. V. Emmanuel, S. M. Dunn, and B. N. Ametaj. “Feeding High
Proportions of Barley Grain Stimulates an Inflammatory Response in Dairy
Cows.” Journal of Dairy Science. 2008 91: 606-614.
33.R. S. Emery, H. D. Hafs, D. Armstrong, and W. W. Snyder. “Prepartum Grain
Feeding Effects on Milk Production, Mammary Edema, and Incidence of
Diseases.” Journal of Dairy Science 1969 52: 345-351.
34.A.A. Sawant, L.M. Sordillo and B.M. Jayarao. “A Survey on Antibiotic
Usage in Dairy Herds in Pennsylvania.” Journal of Dairy Science. (accessed
online March 2008)
61. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service. 1996. Dairy 1996 NAHMS Study, pp. 15-6.
62. Webster AJ. 1986. Health and welfare of animals in modern husbandry
systems: dairy cattle. In Practice May 8(3):85-9.
63. Extending functional longevity. Country Folks of Pennsylvania, May 12,
1997, p. A9.
64. Wallace RL. 2004. Market cows: a potential profit center. University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
65. U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service
Consumer Education and Information. 2005. Safety of Veal…from Farm to Table.
Last updated May 2005.
www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Veal_from_Farm_to_Table/index.asp.
66. USDA APHIS. Dairy 1996 NAHMS Study, op. cit., 21.
67. USDA FSIS. Safety of Veal…from Farm to Table, op. cit.
68. Ibid.
69. Alverson D, Freeberg M, Murawski S, and Pope JG. 1996. A global
assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper
No. 339,
(Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization).
fao.org/DOCREP/003/T4890E/T4890E00.htm.
70. Cetacean Bycatch Resource Center. www.cetaceanbycatch.org. Accessed
February 21, 2007.
71. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2004. U.S.
seafood market shifts to aquaculture. AmberWaves April 2004.
ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/april04/Findings/USSeafood.htm.
72. Cheeke P. 2004. Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture (Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education, p. 282).
73. Hastein T. 2004. Animal welfare issues relating to aquaculture. In:
Proceedings of the Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OIE Initiative.
World Organization for Animal Health. February 2004, pp. 219-27.
74. Mench J, op. cit., 108-9.
75. Broom DM. 2000. Does present legislation help animal welfare?
Sustainable Animal Production: Workshops, Discussion, Online Resources.
www.agriculture.de/acms1/conf6/ws5alegisl.htm.
76. Rollin BE. Farm factories. The Christian Century.
www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2194.