MADISON, Wis. - The Humane Society of the United States is calling for an end to the practice of cutting the tails off dairy cows, calling it painful and unnecessary.

Paul Shapiro, a vice president of the organization, sent a letter to the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, calling for an end to tail-docking.

"There's no reason to cut cows' tails off," he said. "The science is overwhelming that there's no benefit to the cow or to the farmer of performing this mutilation - and yet still, the dairy industry continues it."

The Farm Bureau responded to the letter, saying tail-docking should remain a decision between farmers and their veterinarians.

Shapiro said tail-docking is a serious animal-welfare problem, adding that the practice is banned in several states.

"A number of other states - including California, Ohio, New Jersey and Rhode Island - have passed laws banning this inhumane and unnecessary practice of tail-docking of dairy cows," he said.

Some dairy producers say tail-docking helps with cleanliness and makes it easier to milk the cow, but a University of Wisconsin Agricultural Extension study concluded that the practice has no effect on cleanliness or milk quality.

Shapiro said the jury is "in" on this issue.

"The scientific literature is overwhelmingly clear that there is no benefit to tail-docking," he said. "There's no benefit to the cow. There's no benefit to the producer. It's a cruel and unnecessary practice that's opposed by the dairy industry's own trade group, the National Milk Producers Federation."

The American Veterinary Medical Association also opposes tail-docking.

Shapiro said the practice continues only because of superstition and tradition.

"If the dairy industry actually looked toward science-based guidelines for how they ought to treat cows," he said, "it would do away with tail-docking."

According to the state Department of Agriculture, there are nearly 1.3 million dairy cows in Wisconsin, and each generates about $21,000 worth of economic activity.

The University of Wisconsin study is online at milkquality.wisc.edu.


get more stories like this via email

Pork producers are expected to argue against California's animal welfare laws at a hearing Wednesday before the House Committee on Agriculture.

The witnesses all oppose California's Proposition 12, which establishes minimum space requirements for egg-laying hens and breeding pigs and bans the sale of products failing to comply with those standards.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the advocacy group Animal Wellness Action, said factory farms have too much influence on the federal government.

"The American public doesn't support confining an animal so severely that she can't even turn around," Pacelle asserted. "These crates and cages that they jam breeding sows and laying hens into don't give the animals any opportunity to move."

Across the country, 1,200 producers already comply with Proposition 12 and currently supply pork and eggs to California, according to a report released this week by Animal Wellness Action.

Last week, the Department of Justice sued the State of California, seeking to invalidate parts of Proposition 12, arguing the standards are expensive to implement and drive up the cost of eggs.

Pacelle noted avian flu reduced the supply of eggs and drove up prices. He added California pork and egg producers have already spent millions to comply with Proposition 12.

"The egg producers in California want to keep that law," Pacelle contended. "They don't want to be undercut by cheap eggs coming from Mexico or Iowa, where the animals are jammed, wing to wing, shoulder to shoulder, and can't even move. I mean, giving the animal space may cost a couple of pennies more, but it's what's right."

Congress is considering whether the next Farm Bill should include a proposal to invalidate many state animal welfare laws. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act would overturn Proposition 12 and similar laws in other states.


get more stories like this via email

A new "Compassion Calculator" launched by the charity portal FarmKind aims to help Coloradans who eat meat improve their animal welfare footprints by funneling small donations to verified nonprofits, similar to how polluting companies buy offsets to reduce their carbon footprints.

Thom Norman, cofounder of FarmKind, said the calculator makes it easy for anyone to help end the controversial practice of factory farming, where large numbers of animals are confined in small spaces to produce dairy, eggs and meat as cheaply as possible.

"Most people agree that factory farming is bad, almost half of people in America say that they want to see a ban on new factory farms," Norman reported. "But people often don't know what they can do to help with this problem."

Proponents of factory farming have argued it is necessary to meet growing demand from a rising global population but Norman believes the marketplace is shifting. One recipient of the donations, The Humane League, led successful campaigns to get McDonald's, Panera, Starbucks and Taco Bell to stop using eggs from hens confined in cages so small, birds could not stretch their wings or stand upright.

The shift to cage-free eggs has accelerated after 11 states, including Colorado, set regulations on so-called conventional eggs and the recent bird flu crisis, which led to the loss of more than 125 million U.S. hens.

Norman argued the crowded, high stress conditions in cages are not only inhumane, they also present a clear risk of rapid disease transmission.

"It also is a major driver of public health risks, like for example, antibiotic resistant diseases," Norman stressed. "We feed three quarters of all antibiotics to animals."

FarmKind recently announced its first partnership with a major restaurant chain to use the calculator at scale. Animal welfare effects are offset by three cents per hamburger, and just two cents for an omelet. Norman estimated a three cent offset on last year's global burger sales, less than the cost of a ketchup packet, would have generated nearly $80 million to help create a more humane food system.


get more stories like this via email

Minnesota's transition to the warmer months has been rough when factoring in air quality.

Just like in 2023, there are occasional bouts of unhealthy smoke from Canadian wildfires and animal experts said pets need protection, too. The American Humane Society said just like their owners, the respiratory systems of dogs and cats can suffer when smoky conditions come on strong.

Dr. Thomas Edling, chief veterinary officer of the Humane Society, said dogs need their outside time on a daily basis but when the air quality is bad, it should to be limited to mainly bathroom breaks. He discussed complications with dogs unable to resist running around.

"Younger dogs, especially, are very prone to doing that," Edling observed. "And when do that, you just make the situation worse, because you are breathing more air in quickly, more particulate matter, things like that."

He added owners should avoid activities like playing fetch during brief outdoor moments with their dog. The Humane Society said older pets and certain breeds, including French bulldogs and pugs, are more susceptible to poor air quality and require extra vigilance.

Edling echoed guidance from other health experts who said when the air is filled with smoke, pet owners should keep their windows and doors closed. If a pet's food and water bowl is normally placed outside, they need to be brought in.

"Those will be a collection point for the particulate matter in the air as it falls down and that debris will contaminate the food and the water," Edling pointed out.

After any outdoor activity, owners are encouraged to monitor their pet for coughing, sneezing and difficulty breathing. If the animal shows signs it breathed in too much unhealthy air, a veterinarian should be consulted for possible treatment.


get more stories like this via email