Farmer frustrations over reputation misconceptions

As farmers, we are often told the animal welfare aspects of farm assurance are driven by the concerns of the consumer. I tend to disagree.

An element of society couldn’t care less how food is produced, just as long as it’s cheap. Chicken is a classic example. “People” are quite happy if they can buy a chicken in their supermarket for £3, and are not too bothered how it got there for £3, either. If you offered them a free-range chicken for, say, £11, they would opt for the £3 one most of the time. This element of society would be in the majority.

There would then be the “don’t know” – which are other words for “don’t care” – element, and then the element who do care; they care very much, but I don’t think they will ever be satisfied. They largely keep pets that they treat as humans and think farm animals should be treated just the same, which is impossible.

I see them come into the pub with their dogs. Their first concern is the dog should be comfortable, which often includes that it should be allowed to sit on the best seat they can find. Then – only then – do they get seated themselves and fetch drinks. Never mind that the dog is sitting on a seat intended for humans; never mind that they might have two or three children running unsupervised in the car park.

Value

I value my pets, but don’t humanise them. As I write, my terrier is lying on my feet. This is a great comfort – not least because I don’t have any socks on and autumn is here, and he is nice and warm. But I couldn’t extend the same comfortable lifestyle to all my other animals. I know that’s obvious, but a valuable sector of society doesn’t see it like that.

We treat our animals with kindness and respect. We would like – and need – new winter accommodation for our cows, but don’t have the money, and if the forecasts of a no deal Brexit should come true, we never will have. The irony is, a few years back, when milk prices were below cost of production, the money we had to borrow then to keep going would have put up a new cubicle shed.

What really makes me cross is some farmers do such stupid things, but all farmers are forced to share the same bad publicity. A lot of beef suckler herds are in this area and some farmers would wean their calves the day they sold them. You can see why – the calves would be at their best; they would not suffer a post-weaning check.

But our local market is within the town and sometimes a bunch of calves would be left at market overnight – and would make noise. They would have made noise at weaning wherever they were, but non-farming people wouldn’t understand that, so they would hear these cattle bawling all night, wonder why, draw their own conclusions and blame farmers.

Who can blame them. Quite simply, the calves shouldn’t have been left there. There was probably a simple explanation, like a lorry driver being over his hours, or the cattle were to go a long way so it was put off until the next day. Either way, it should not be allowed to happen. I haven’t heard of this happening for years, but it used to.

Recently, a big sheep sale took place in a field and pens were constructed out of hurdles – 24 hours later, two pens of ewes were still shut in. A public footpath runs through the field that is used a lot by dog walkers. Some of them would work out what was going on. Everyone these days carries a camera and the means to tell this story to the world instantly (even me).

A friend of mine went through the field and was appalled. He decided if the ewes were still in the pens the next day, he would shut the field gates and let them out. Thankfully, he went back early the next day and someone had done just that. It might have been the owner – and I would like to think it was – or someone who had also worked out what was going on. It should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. Livestock farming has enough critics anyway, without farmers giving them free ammunition.

Mobility scoring

A big part of dairy cow welfare is mobility. Several years ago, I went to a class on mobility scoring taken by a vet who told us they had previously worked for a major retailer advising it on animal welfare for their direct suppliers.

To start with, the vet said mobility was scored on a 1 to 3 basis (3 being the worst). I immediately said 3 was not enough; that there would be degrees within that range and 1 to 10 would be better. The vet said 1 to 3 was okay because you could round up the figures. I remained suspicious.

In the afternoon, we went outside and scored some cows. I particularly remember the final cow we scored. She was a huge Holstein, well fleshed and as fit as a fiddle. She had had four or five calves and wasn’t lame, but didn’t walk like a heifer. I expect I walked better when I was 20 than when I was 50.

The vet scored her at more than 2, but said to round it up to 3. I then asked what they would recommend and was told this cow should be culled. I was appalled – so appalled I went to my local branch of the NFU meeting to tell them about it. That was a waste of time – I was the only dairy farmer there, and the beef and sheep farmers weren’t interested. They are usually envious of dairy farmers; they always assume dairy farmers make more money. They would like the money, but don’t want the work.

My theory is if you cull good fit cows like the one I saw then your replacement rate will go up, which in itself is a welfare issue. As far as I know, no one asked the cow what she thought.