We are urgently developing research requirements with other European laboratories to make sure we understand and the disease (Schmallenberg) better.Why big dairies are not necessarily bad for cow welfare – RSPCA
THE RSPCA’s John Avizienius has dared to question the assumption that large, mainly indoor dairy units mean a life of miserly for cows. He tells Alistair Driver why he believes big is not necessarily bad.
Big is bad. Large-scale dairying equals ‘US style factory farming’ and erecting these ‘mega dairies’ over here would spark an animal welfare ‘catastrophe’.
That has been the core message from the animal welfare lobby ever since Nocton Dairies unveiled plans for an 8,100-cow unit in Lincolnshire and groups like Viva! launched ferocious campaigns to halt large-scale farming in the UK.
So when a leading figure from the biggest animal welfare organisation of them all suggests big might not actually be that bad, eyebrows are raised.
John Avizienius, deputy head of the RSPCA’s farm animal department, admits comments reported in Farmers Guardian in recent weeks have upset a number of people.
But he is sticking by his stance that the debate sparked by
Nocton has been too ‘simplistic’ in its focus on size and the fact the animals are predominantly housed indoors.
“Nocton is the most controversial issue to hit the dairy industry for many years. But underneath it is this very interesting debate about cow welfare and how the industry is going.
“With many farmers leaving and quotas going in 2015, the natural thing to do is expand. But unfortunately some people see this expansion/intensification as necessarily bad and immediately equate it with poor animal welfare. I don’t wholly agree with that and neither do some other welfarists,” he says.
Mr Avizienius, who comes from Lithuanian farming stock, began his working life as a herdsman in Dorset and Devon, going on to become a farm consultant, before joining the RSPCA. “I have ultimate respect for farmers and their animals,” he says.
Personal experience
His view on large units is based partly, he says, on his experience with other species, such as meat chickens, laying hens and pigs.
“You would immediately think if these animals are completely housed it is bad for them. But if you look beyond your first perceptions at the actualities of welfare and devise standards based on an understanding of the animals, you can see that large units can supply good welfare,” he says.
Mr Avizienius has visited existing ‘large’ UK dairy units, albeit on smaller scale to the Nocton plans, and found what he describes as ‘brilliant, cow-centric management’ in some.
“Some are the epitome of good welfare. You can’t fail to be inspired by what they are doing. Their understanding of cows is fantastic and they make decisions entirely based around the needs of the cow,” he says.
He contrasts this with what he has witnessed on some small farms in the past – miserable looking cows, living in poor conditions, suffering chronic lameness and not being properly fed’.
He points out that the respected fawc.org.uk/” class=”intextlink” target=”_blank”>Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) recently concluded there are ‘few disadvantages’ to keeping cows in large herds, as long as the
stockmanship is of the highest standard.
“I am not saying that one is better than the other and I don’t think these big units will take over the country. But I do think diversity in the industry is to be applauded and not feared,” he says.
Mr Avizienius insists his comments should not be interpreted as support for either the Nocton proposal or the US model of large dairying.
The RSPCA’s official line on Nocton is that it is ‘not persuaded as to the welfare credentials of Nocton’s application until certain concerns have been satisfied’.
“People want a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer for Nocton but we need to make the decision on evidence and we simply do not have enough at this stage. That is the reality of it. I try and do what’s right and if people don’t like that, I can’t legislate for it,” he says.
Nocton Dairies claims the unit would be designed ‘to a level beyond the highest animal welfare standards ever seen in the UK’.
Mr Avizienius challenged the men behind it to back up the claim by, guaranteeing, for example, they will not export young calves and will provide more cubicles than there are cows.
“Give us something to support or oppose. You can’t just say welfare is going to be exceptional,” he says. “Are they thinking about it purely as pounds, shillings and pence or are they thinking about the positives that could come out if it?
“Could it be seen as a centre of excellence, the gold standard of dairy husbandry with an experimental arm to look at how cows fare in this sort of operation?
“Or is it the inexorable slide into some cow concentration camp that some people are so worried about?”
Witnessed
Mr Avizienius was part of a UK delegation to the US earlier in the summer which witnessed the good and bad sides of large-scale US dairying.
He acknowledges that ‘you could not help but be impressed by the condition of the cows’, notably the lack of hock injury and lameness, in the large units visited. But there were also ‘alarm bells’, such as evidence of ‘repeated apparently purposeless stereotyping behaviour’ usually associated with pigs.
The ‘whole US attitude towards animal welfare left a lot to be desired,’ he adds, citing the ‘syringe stockmanship’ openly on view and practices like tail docking, a complete ‘no, no’ in the UK.
“I don’t think it is applicable to take the American model as it is and transpose it to Britain,” he says.
Mr Avizienius, however, argues the traditional UK model of dairying is, on many farms, failing to supply the modern Holstein with her needs.
He points to indicators suggesting ‘no progress’ has been made over the past few decades in areas like lameness, with ‘25 per cent of animals in pain at any one time’, and the growth of certain diseases, such as BVD, Johne’s and IBR.
“The Holstein is like a racing car. When everything is OK, it is fantastic but when it goes wrong, it goes very wrong. She is like a Ferrari but we often treat her like a Morris Minor,” he says.
Dickensian slums
The blame, he suggests, lies partly with the quality of housing systems – likened to ‘Dickensian slums’ by a vet at a recent conference, which, he says, give some summer-grazed cows ‘winters of discontent’.
He also questions the traditional notion of putting summer-calved cows immediately out to graze ‘when she is not hungry, there is not much and she has soft feet’.
The RSPCA ‘does not support systems which house dairy cows 365 days a year’. “We believe that after peak yield, when they are back in-calf, it is an advantage for cows to go outside and get some vitamin D and walk around on a dry surface,” says Mr Avizienius.
But he says there is ‘a case’ for keeping the animal in when she is at her ‘most vulnerable’, after calving until she is back in-calf. “This ensures she is properly fed and comfortable at the time when most of the problems occur,” he says.
His core argument is that the modern, high performing cow – ‘wrongly vilified for her yield’ – is making old assumptions about welfare redundant and new thinking is required about how her mental and physical well-being can be maximised.
He supports the recently-launched industry Dairy Cow Welfare Strategy, which he hopes will lead to a more sophisticated approach to defining cow welfare.
“The indicators may say welfare is unaffected by keeping the cow in, or that it isn’t. We can’t tell yet because we haven’t got this sort of unit in the UK yet,” he says.
Which takes us back to Nocton. “In a SWOT analysis, Nocton could be all things to the industry – strength, weakness, opportunity and threat. At the moment we just don’t know,” he says.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (15)
Geoff Hall | 27 August 2010 5:30 pm
I'm pleased to see the Nocton Dairy issue is causing an interesting debate... and so it should. It is much too important to ignore.
Big is not always beautiful in my mind, but as we have seen in many other diverse industries there can be major benefits, but the problems also become huge as well.
My fear with this particular application is that the Nocton Dairies conglomerate is not yet ready to take this leap into the big time.
The original application has been withdrawn, no doubt to be adjusted and refined for resubmission following shortcomings. The public relations to date have been appalling, now requiring the services of a professional PR company to improve their image and to build bridges with the communities involved, but is it too little too late?
Unfortunately, it doesn't give me a great deal of confidence that all bases have been covered off. There is an old military phrase... you may know of it: 'Proper planning and preparation prevents p*** poor performance'. I admit, I don't want this development to succeed for many varied reasons... but it would be absolutely fatal for UK farming and the dairy industry in particular, if the management of this facility was to reflect the slipshod approach taken so far.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julie, Potterhanworth | 27 August 2010 8:15 pm
I see that once again the only 'anti' argument is cited as being animal welfare. Whilst this is obviously a major concern, it has never been at the forefront of the list of objections from local residents. Our concerns are many - including impact on the environment, increased HGV movement through villages and on an already inadequate B road. We also fear for the demise of the smaller dairy farm -already struggling because of the power of the supermarkets.
Nocton Dairies believed they could site this monstrosity in Lincolnshire because there would be little resistance - their arrogant attitude towards local residents has done nothing to dispel this assumption.
Only now, when they realise the force of opposition, are they making noises about 'consulting' with us.
Too little, too late, I'm afraid.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28 August 2010 1:26 am
does it matter wether they consult with u or not, they have the land, they have the money i dont see why not, theme parks there big, and create traffic, racing parks, wether its horse racing car or motor cycle racing, it generates a business, and it will go ahead my suggestions are if u dont like it then keep your oppinions to yourself, and having super dairies etc, is'nt always bad it can give numerous small strugling farmers a chance to join together if needs be, and create 1 big dairy between however many.
increased enviromental?.... the newest super dairy to be built is enviromentally friendly, a hgv or 2 woopsie doo! its not like your be living along side the M25 or something like that now is it, your not going to have built up traffic stuck behind lorry after lorry! really you residents are being absolutely rediculous, and as mainly townies complaining it just a reason for you to have a good old moan because thats all you know! rediculous, let them get on with it, because either way it will go ahead, and that way if you let the, get on with it you wont feel dissapointed that its there, where if fight it, your still be sat there 5 years down the line thinking why did i bother trying to fight!, leave them to it, farming needs to be done, and this is the way its going to be in the future, more and more super dairies which is a great way of farming and creates jobs, for people of all ages, instead of these people not being able to work and claiming benefits and using your taxes and so on, jeez, you people really dont understand!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28 August 2010 8:05 am
I see the article states that Mr Avizienius' views for supporting large super dairy farms are based upon his experience with' meat chickens, laying hens and pigs'.
Enough said!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kathryn Billings | 28 August 2010 10:13 am
Whatever the pros and cons of animal welfare in mega dairies, as far as the Nocton factory is concerned we can all agree on one thing. This project is unprecedented.
In their eagerness to refine and promote the details of their new application the Nocton consortium have overlooked the two most important aspects which cannot be changed.
1. The factory dairy is situated on a sensitive aquifer and risks polluting the public water supply.
2. It is far too close to our villages.
Before taking this massive step towards industrial dairying we need far more research done by independent groups who have no financial interest in these projects.The past record and current behaviour of the Nocton consortium can never inspire confidence and this particular dairy is in the wrong place.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28 August 2010 12:18 pm
Unfortunately in the USA we have the Humane Society of the United States, a vegan animal rights social movement, confiscating animals from one person selling them through shelters to someone else. Farm animals, no exception for what they term as "abuse". Farm animals no exception. Will we see the future in stepping on a cockroach will be punishable by time in jail. Farm issues should be based on science and not emotion from people who believe if an animal does not have the opportunity to act natural is abuse. When people realize one can not produce a product (protein) unless their cattle are well taken care of - but there is a push for veganism to show compassion. I shudder to think what would happen to the people of the world in the push to become vegan, meaning no more animals killed for food! Now that is quite scary.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Molly Brown | 28 August 2010 1:35 pm
Since when did the RSPCA know better than seasoned Farmers? To my mind, they involve themselves in too many things that don't concern them, and in any case, a couple of months ago, the RSPCA were against this intensive farming, what's changed?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julie Partridge | 28 August 2010 4:23 pm
Dear Anonymous, If you thiink your food production should be determined by scientists can I remind you that it was scientists who thought it OK to feed sheeps' brains to cattle thus begining the BSE epidemic.
Notcon Dairies may have done nothing for the reputation of good farmers but it has made many local people far more savy about where our food comes from and why. Maybe it's not too late to stop the next health disaster.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian Glaister | 31 August 2010 7:55 am
IN response to the article regarding the proposed development of an 8,100 super dairy in Nocton, Lincs and the anti opposition being misinformed, as a group of concerned residents, we have tried wherever possible to use scientific papers to highlight the retrograde step we believe this development will be to the UK dairy industry. These papers range from European Scientific Panel reports to peer reviewed published articles. These papers show that:
• Cows reared and milked in the way Nocton are proposing have a life expectancy one year less that conventionally reared (Whitaker et al).
• The milk yield Nocton require is 46% higher than the UK average and excessive milking in this type of regime correlates with higher incidence of mastitis (Bradley et al) (FAWC 2009).
• Lameness in high yielding cows is greater than conventionally reared (Amory et al).
• The proposed ratio of cows to stockpeople in the Nocton plan is significantly higher than recommended levels at 632:1 (Reading Agricultural Consultants 2010).
Looking at the human impact of living with a development twice the size of Wembley Stadium less than a mile from the nearest habitation as local residents we will:
• Experience a significant increase in volume of traffic on minor B class roads already designated as a Dangerous Red Route, high accident road. The majority of traffic movements will be slow moving HGV delivering feed, removing calves and 250,000 litres of milk each day. Farm tractors will also need to use the same entrance to transport slurry to outlying fields over a radius of 5 miles.
• Increase in slurry spreading (440,000 litres each day) in our locality and until the commissioning of the proposed anaerobic digester in three years, this will be raw and untreated. Such spreading has the potential to increase odour and associated fly infestation and threat to human health as is being experienced by another Lincolnshire village at the moment. In the USA a similar dairy factory would require an 8 mile exclusion zone to allow smell to dissipate. Other risks associated with this level of spreading in the area include shallow soils, proximity to a major aquifer supplying 40% of local drinking water and a pre-existing diffuse pollution in the area.
• An industrial process of this size will produce noise/light pollution and given milking is planned 23/7 will produce significant levels of nuisance in the area.
• Housing blight is a fact already affecting the locality with sales falling through or unacceptable offers being made. And this is before a revised planning application has been submitted.
Given the above, is it good enough just to take the word of Ms Willes, Barns and Howard, who may be well intentioned but looking to make a significant profit from this venture, or should we examine some of the issues in more depth by demanding a public enquiry into the non regulated future of industrial dairy farming on this scale in the UK?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bruce | 2 September 2010 11:40 am
This is quite worrying because under the surface of saying big isn't necessarily bad he's really saying there are welfare problems aross our industry, especially in small units. What he is saying about management being the key - whether it is a big or small farm - is spot on, however!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment