|
Cattle are grazers and browsers,
eating a wide variety of grasses, forbs and leaves/bark (from
shrubs and trees). Not having upper front teeth, cattle do not
nip off plants as a horse does but use their flexible tongue to
wrap around a “bite” and break it off with a movement of the
head. They bite short grass with the lower teeth and hard upper
palate, but cannot graze as closely as a horse or a sheep.
Domestic cattle are more versatile
in diet than wild animals, partly because man has provided a
variety of feeds and developed types of cattle that thrive in a
variety of environmental conditions. A cow’s selection of plants
she chooses to eat is partly instinctive and partly
learned--from experience with various feeds, according to Dr.
Clive Phillips (University of Queensland, Australia) who has
studied cattle behavior for more than 25 years.
For instance, a mature cow that’s never been fed grain may
refuse to eat it. But a cow that grew up eating grain will
readily eat it, even many years later. Young stock learn much of
their feed preferences by mimicking other members of the herd,
especially their mothers.
Calves sample their mothers’ hay
when only a few days old and stick their noses in water when
mama drinks, following her example. By contrast, a hand-reared
calf may not try hay or grain (or water) until several weeks old
or older, not having a role model to copy, unless you stick the
feed in its mouth a few times. Orphan calves often do better if
they can live with an older animal to teach them the facts of
life about eating.
Dr. Phillips says the grazing
process is definitely a learned (rather than instinctive)
behavior and cites the fact that at 8 weeks of age calves graze
about 14 bites per minute whereas by 18 weeks of age they’ve
mastered the technique and can graze at 50 bites per minute, a
rate similar to that seen in adult cows.
Cattle are herd animals and tend
to graze together in groups. If a cow or yearling is off by
itself, it may be sick or lame (hindering its ability to stay
with the group). On range or large pasture, cattle often form
bonds with other members of the herd and tend to graze with a
buddy or family group. It’s common to see small family groups
ranging together, such as an older cow (with present calf at
side) and her yearling daughter, or another daughter and her
calf.
Preference for Certain Plants
Cattle have definite preferences when grazing. They prefer new
tender regrowth and avoid older, mature plants. As pointed out
by Thomas E. Bedell, Extension Rangeland Resources Specialist at
Oregon State University (now retired), the levels of most
nutritive components of a plant decline as it matures,
especially protein levels. “Cattle tend to select diets that are
higher in protein and lower in fiber”, he says, so they prefer
young, tender plants. A pasture can be most efficiently utilized
if stocking rate is such that cattle can trim it evenly and then
be moved to new pasture. Rotational grazing works better for
many pastures (allowing more cattle per acre and a healthier
situation for the plants) than season-long grazing. A pasture
can be more fully utilized (and cattle moved to new pasture)
then allowed to regrow.
With season-long grazing, the
preferred plants are over used. Cattle graze them again and
again, because the regrowth is more tender than old mature
plants that become coarse and dry. Some of the heavily grazed
plants may be weakened or killed if this happens year after
year. Once a plant becomes coarse and mature, the cow won’t eat
it unless there isn’t much else left to eat in that pasture.
Old, rank “wolf plants” are rarely grazed; the plants become
choked with old dead leaves and stems, not as productive and
healthy as a normal plant. For best plant health, grass needs to
be grazed at some point in its growing season. Grazing
stimulates new growth. A plant that’s periodically grazed is
more vigorous and productive than a plant that’s never grazed.
For best pasture health, grasses should be grazed with an
adequate number of cattle to trim most of the plants a little,
including the less palatable ones, and then the herd moved so
plants can regrow. The same principles for growing a healthy
lawn apply to pasture, but the periodic mowing is done by
cattle.
This type of rotational grazing
greatly minimizes the adverse effects of selective grazing by
forcing more uniform use of a pasture at a particular season.
Bedell says the animals may not perform quite as well when use
is forced but performance “can be better than expected if you
can get them to graze the plants available. Unpalatable plants
do not necessarily have poor nutritive value; rumen bacteria
responsible for a cow’s digestion may not be as fussy as the
animal’s taste buds” and can convert the plant materials into
usable nutrients.
He points out that ruminants can thrive on forage alone because
of rumen bacteria that use the chemicals in forage for their own
growth and reproduction as they digest the feed and synthesize
other necessary nutrients. They make a complete diet out of what
would otherwise appear to be only a partial diet.
Social Factors
Cattle are group grazers, staying together while feeding. They
evolved as herd animals for protection against predators,
staying together while grazing, eating plants that can be
consumed quickly minimizing time spent out in the open) then
rechewing food later at their leisure in a safe place. They all
graze together at certain times of day, moving as a herd over
the pasture in a common direction and with a specific
inter-animal distance between herd members, and often with
preferred grazing partners (certain animals in the herd often
grazing together).
Phillips said this social aspect
of grazing and cattle influence on one another can be
demonstrated when cattle are given supplementary feed that
reduces their need for grazing time. When supplemented cattle
are grazed with unsupplemented cattle, grazing time of the
latter is reduced as well--they don’t want to graze when their
buddies won’t go with them.
Cattle are very gregarious,
uneasy and restless if separated from the main herd. Yet they
also need their individual space. If you put too many cattle in
a small area, they become restless and do more walking and
trampling of the grass. They do best in relatively small groups
rather than concentrated in small pastures in large groups. For
ideal pasture rotation, you need to discover (usually by trial
and error experience) what makes the most ideal stocking rate
for each pasture (and for how long a period), depending on the
type of grass, climate and terrain, and type of cattle. Some
breeds and types are more restless than others when confined in
large groups in small areas.
Grass Waste by Fecal Deposits
On rangeland, where cattle have a lot of room, fecal material is
dispersed over a wide area and has little effect on grazing
patterns. In smaller pastures (especially irrigated or tame
pastures) fecal deposits may hinder use of some of the grass.
Cattle don’t like to graze plants near their manure. As Dr.
Phillips states, rejection of grasses around each fecal deposit
will be greater in undergrazed pastures “because cattle have the
choice of other, cleaner areas to graze.” They reject the grass
next to the manure at first because they can smell the feces,
and then later because it has grown tall and too mature.
This rejection of forage next to
manure may be nature’s way of limiting parasite infestation;
larva that hatch from worm eggs in manure crawl onto adjacent
plants, ready to be eaten, to reinfest the grazing animal.
Cattle will eat grass around the manure of other species such as
horses or sheep, whose parasites cannot complete their life
cycle in cattle. Cattle and sheep can be grazed together to
advantage, since they complement one another in plant selection
(eating a wider variety of total plants) and few plants will
grow too mature and rank--and they also graze next to each
other’s droppings.
Grazing Time
Cattle need adequate grazing time to eat enough forage to meet
their needs. If feed is good, they get full quickly and spend
more time resting. If feed is scarce, they spend more time
grazing. Because of their need to spend part of each day (and
most of the night) chewing the cud, they may not be able to
spend enough time grazing to meet their nutritional requirements
if feed is sparse. If cattle are spending part of their normal
“resting time” eating, this is a clue that they don’t have
enough feed.
They may also shortchange
themselves on grazing time (and lose weight) if conditions are
adverse for grazing--such as very hot or very cold weather. In
extreme heat, cattle spend more time in the shade than grazing,
and do some grazing at night when it’s cooler. In winter, when
cattle are cold and days are short, they may stand around
waiting for sunshine instead of grazing. Temperature must
generally be higher than 20 degrees F before cattle get going in
the mornings to graze. A little hay or supplement on cold
mornings can encourage cattle to start eating sooner.
Dr. Phillips said the high heat
of digestion of fiber (in roughages eaten by cattle) enables
them to survive very low temperatures without loss of
production, provided they have a functional rumen to create that
heat of digestion. “Pre-ruminant (young) or sick cattle or those
that are inadequately fed, have reduced tolerance of cold
stress. Feeding time for all cattle increases at low
temperatures, but healthy ruminant cattle can easily adjust to
sub-zero temperatures. The major nutritional adjustment they
make is to speed up the rate of reticular contractions (one of
the four stomachs) increasing ruminating time and the heat
increment of digestion,” according to Phillips.
Stormy weather can cut into
grazing time, as will any other conditions that interfere with
normal grazing habits and patterns. Heavy rain usually brings a
halt to grazing; cattle move to sheltered or brushy areas to
wait out the storm. But a light rain often encourages them to
graze, especially on a hot summer day. Cattle that were lying
around will often get up and graze if the temperature drops a
bit due to light rain. Cattle on lush green pasture often stop
grazing (or eat less) when grass is wet from rain. But cattle on
drier grasses (such as range bunch grass) generally increase
their feed intake when grass is dampened or “softened up” by
rain or snow. If there’s frost on the grass, however, they are
reluctant to graze, perhaps because grasping the frosted grass
chills the tongue.
Cattle use climatic effects to
best advantage while grazing, says Phillips. When it’s cold they
position themselves broadside to the sunshine. In cold wind and
rain they stand with hindquarters to the wind to shield their
more sensitive faces. They seek shelter if wind, rain or snow
are severe, but in most instances will continue to graze, going
with the wind direction, traveling faster and grazing less
intensively.
A knowledge of cattle grazing
behavior and habits can be used to advantage when managing
cattle and grass, and utilizing various pastures. Knowing which
conditions encourage good feed consumption and which may hinder
it can help stockmen make wise decisions about pasture rotation,
supplementation, stocking rates or movement of cattle. There’s
no substitute for a good working knowledge of your cattle and
how they behave under various conditions for grazing.
All together now: Booooooooo!
Pfffffft!
That’s what the cattle industry rightfully says to radical
animal rights groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS).
There’s PETA with its naked
celebrities shedding their furs, the inflammatory PR campaigns
aimed at everything from the exploitation of tadpoles, to
animals used for recreation and entertainment, to mainstream
livestock production and on and on.
There’s Ingrid Newkirk, PETA
president and co-founder, saying on a CNN newscast, as Great
Britain was being rocked by Foot and Mouth Disease in 2001, “I
openly hope that it comes here. It will bring economic harm only
for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving
animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good
for animals, good for human health and good for the
environment.”
Then there’s the more refined
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) with its undercover
videos, massive budget and political savvy, petitioning
producers into corners, while parading itself as a true animal
welfare organization.
According to a profile from the
Center for Consumer Freedom, “The Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS) is a humane society in name only, since it doesn’t
operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere
in the United States. During 2007, HSUS contributed only 3.64
percent of its budget to organizations that operate hands-on dog
and cat shelters. In reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights
lobbying organization (the largest and richest on earth) that
agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical groups.”
The unhidden agenda, of course, for organizations like these is
to rid the world of meat consumption. So far, they’ve offered no
alternative solutions to the protein void were they to be
successful.
Enough of that. It’s too easy to
get mad at such groups and overlook the mainstream debate they
bastardize to fill their coffers from the unknowing.
Defend This
Never listen to Bernie Rollin unless you’re prepared to have
you’re comfortable world of black and white smudged up a bit.
He’s the world-renowned expert on veterinary medical ethics.
He’s a professor of both philosophy and animal science at
Colorado State University.
At December’s Beef Range Beef Cow
Symposium, Rollin presented a paper entitled, Animal Rights as a
Mainstream Phenomenon. In it he outlines the ethical revolutions
in Western society for the past 50 years. Think here of
everything from feminism and the Civil Rights Movement, to
animal welfare.
For virtually all of human
history, Rollin says animal agriculture was based on animal
husbandry. That term still gets bandied about, but Rollin uses
the term specifically.
“Husbandry, derived from the old Norse word “hus/band,” bonded
to the household, meant taking great pains to put one’s animals
into the best possible environment one could find to meet their
physical and psychological natures…” Rollin explains. “In
husbandry, a producer did well if and only if the animals did
well, so productivity was tied to welfare. No social ethic was
thus needed to ensure proper animal treatment; only the
anti-cruelty (laws) designed to deal with sadists and
psychopaths was needed to augment husbandry. Self-interest
virtually assured good treatment.”
Yes, producers worth their salt
still go above and beyond in caring for their livestock. Rollin
recognizes that. But he also points out the basic relationship
between livestock and their stewards changed in the wake of WW
II. That’s when the U.S. government and its society wanted to
ensure there would be plenty of affordable food. The Great
Depression was still a close memory, after all.
Consequently, producers began
utilizing new technology and management to produce more with
fewer acres, fewer head of livestock for the same or less money.
Looking over today’s shoulder, that wasn’t a conscious decision;
instead it was the slow deliberate reaction of producers to
evolving farm policy and the markets.
In doing so, Rollin says, “With
technological sanders—hormones, vaccines, antibiotics,
air-handling systems, mechanization—we could force square pegs
into round holes, and place animals into environments where they
suffered in ways irrelevant to productivity.”
Now, think back to the ethical
revolutions Rollin mentioned. For more than 50 years he explains
Western society has continued to extend its moral categories for
humans to people previously morally ignored by society, such as
women, ethnic minorities, the handicapped and so on.
“So a plausible and obvious move
is for society to continue in its tendency and attempt to extend
the moral machinery it has developed for dealing with people,
appropriately modified, to animals. And this is precisely what
has occurred. Society has taken elements of the moral categories
it uses for assessing the treatment of people and is in
the process of modifying these concepts to make them appropriate
for dealing with new issues in the treatment of animals,
especially their use in science and confinement agriculture.”
It’s about ethics, not science
This has nothing to do with science. Rollin serves on the
National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (Pew
Commission), which is a dirty word for many livestock producers.
A few years back, the Pew
Commission was charged with studying intensive animal
agriculture in the U.S. In the process, Rollin says in his paper
that one livestock industry representative testifying before the
Commission said it could allay the industry’s anxiety about the
study if the industry knew the Commission’s conclusions and
recommendations would be based on science.
Rollin explains, “Hoping to
rectify the error in that comment, as well as educate the
numerous industry representatives present, I responded to her as
follows: ‘Madame, if we on the Commission were asking the
question of how to raise swine in confinement, science could
certainly answer that question for us. But that is not the
question the Commission, or society, is asking. What we are
asking is, ought we raise swine in confinement?’”
The Pew Commission report—Putting
Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) in
America—has this to say about animal welfare: “IFAP methods for
raising food animals have generated concern and debate over just
what constitutes a reasonable life for animals and what kind of
quality of life we owe the animals in our care. It is an ethical
dilemma that transcends objective scientific measures, and
incorporates value-based concerns. Physical health as measured
by absence of some diseases or predation, for example, may be
enhanced through confinement since the animals may not be
exposed to certain infectious agents or sources of injury that
would be encountered if the animals were raised outside of
confinement. It is clear, however, that good animal welfare can
no longer be assumed based only on the absence of disease or
productivity outcomes. Intensive confinement (e.g. gestation
crates for swine, battery cages for laying hens) often so
severely restricts movement and natural behaviors, such as the
ability to walk or lie on natural materials, having enough floor
space to move with some freedom, and rooting for pigs, that it
increases the likelihood that the animals suffer severe
distress.”
Among the animal welfare
recommendations made in the Pew Commission report: “Phase out
the most intensive and inhumane production practices within a
decade to reduce IFAP risks to public health and improve animal
well being.” Of the seven practices cited, sow gestation crates,
dairy cattle tail docking and poultry battery cages have become
illegal in some states or are in the process of becoming so.
When considered through the
lenses of science and production these recommendations can seem
both ignorant and arrogant. But when you pose the same
question—Ought we?—that Rollin did to the aforementioned
industry representative worried about the science, it’s easier
to understand the conclusions.
Last November, the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) issued a point by point
response to the Pew Commission IFAP report.
Broadly, in the executive summary
of the response, AVMA says, “In our analysis of the Pew
Commission’s report, we found several areas of concern,
beginning with the technical assemblage of academics to research
and review the report. The Pew Commission purports to have
utilized a process that melds the thoughts of top academics and
diverse stakeholders into its grandiose examination of food
animal production. However, the Pew Commission’s process for
gaining technical expertise in the technical reports was biased
and did not incorporate the findings and suggestions of a
significant number of participating academicians. We caution
readers that we found disparities within the report, potentially
due to the lack of incorporation of differing interpretations
and conclusions offered by subject matter experts.”
In the area of IFAP animal
welfare recommendations, the AVMA says in part, “While we
believe there is value in some of the recommendations offered by
the Pew Commission, we assert that many of the Commission’s
sub-points have significant shortfalls and lack in comprehensive
idea development or in how the Commission would execute a new
plan or program…its recommendations inappropriately assume that
intensive methods of farmed animal production are patently
inhumane.” AVMA goes on to list several misconceptions, such as
the assertion that increased living space for livestock results
in improved welfare.
“A complete assessment of welfare
requires consideration of animals’ physiological and
psychological needs. In general, intensive animal production
systems better satisfy the physiological and health needs of
animals, whereas extensive animal production systems better
satisfy the behavioral needs. Because the advantages and
disadvantages of farmed animal production systems for animal
welfare are qualitatively different, there is no simple or
objective way to rank systems for overall welfare,” explains the
AVMA response. “Maintaining good welfare within production
systems involves trade-offs. For example, production systems
that allow animals to perform natural behaviors (e.g., providing
substrates that permit swine to root) may present more
challenges for disease and injury control. Conversely, using
intensive confinement to improve disease and injury control
often limits animals’ ability to engage in normal behaviors.”
In the case of the beef cattle,
Rollin believes the practices the industry must get away from
are hot iron branding, dehorning without anesthesia and
castration without anesthesia.
All of this only skims the surface of Rollin’s insightful and
eloquent case in logic, but it gets at what’s behind the
mainstream animal welfare groups’ concerns. It explains why
otherwise intelligent seeming folks can throw out notions that
are anathema to efficient mainstream production.
Agree or disagree with Rollin’s
points, but understand this is the psyche behind the mainstream
animal welfare debate, not the lamebrain issues tossed around by
the radial groups like PETA and HSUS in the name of fun-raising.
For Rollins paper, see (http://www.rangebeefcow.com/2009/documents/Rollin-Bernard_E.pdf)
For the Pew Commission report see
http://www.ncifap.org/bin/e/j/PCIFAPFin.pdf
For the AVMA response, see
http://www.avma.org/advocacy/PEWresponse/PEW_report_response.pdf
|
