Hacker News Reader

Comment by vzidex | Hacker News Reader

Note: I'm heavily biased due to being vegan.

What I found interesting while reading this was what it _didn't_ say. Specifically, they mention that calves are kept with their mothers for 5-6 months, but what happens to them after that? They also don't say how long they keep the cows themselves for.

Typically male calves are sent for slaughter [1], and females raised to be dairy cows themselves. Furthermore, dairy cows are usually slaughtered after only 5 years of life [2], while the natural lifespan of a dairy cow is ~20 years [3].

[1] http://ontarioveal.on.ca/all-about-veal/the-real-deal-about-...

[2] https://albertamilk.com/ask-dairy-farmer/how-long-does-the-a...

[3] https://animaldiversity.org/site/accounts/information/Bos_ta...

View on HN

I think it's obvious that the calves and some of the cows are eventually sent for slaughter. A small dairy like the one above can only maintain so many animals at a time.

This is a dairy farm, so it should not be expected to abide by the ethics of vegan people. I posted the article, so I feel compelled to apologise if this was the impression it gives. For me it was obvious that the cows and the calves are eventually meat for eating.

Edit: Note that calves are normally killed for meat at a time between 12-18 weeks. The idea of this system is to avoid causing undue distress to the cows by taking away their calves too early. This is a valid concern as some people do not like to eat very young animals and are uncomfortable with the distress caused to cows separated from their calves immediately after birth, as is typical in industrial farming.

> This is a dairy farm, so it should not be expected to abide by the ethics of vegan people.

No one said it should. What the parent poster said were that there were significant things not said by the article. For the folks who care about animal welfare (especially as a purchasing factor), knowing what the farm does in totality is important.

I don't disagree with you. The farm should be upfront about what exactly it does with the cattle once they're weaned. If they are butchered on the grounds, they should show how they do that. If they hand them off to someone else, they should probably say a few words about how they are sure the animals are treated no worse than needed on the way to, and during, slaughter.

I think that, counter-intuitively, the squeamishness about this part of eating animals (i.e. their killing) is responsible for a large part of people being at least uncomfortable with, if not completely opposed to the very idea (of eating other animals).

In any case, we kill animals to eat them and there is nothing good that can come out of trying to obscure this simple fact.

Btw, I think that "ethical dairy" is a silly name. I was just curious about the idea of leaving the calves with their mothers and milking the mothers only once a day etc.

I am not overly fond of euphemisms, but why is “ethical dairy“ not a useful term here? They really seem to be making the animals’ lives better.

I agree. Vegans are usually 'all or nothing' when it comes to animal welfare. However, if you could increase the quality of life of farm animals from miserable to decent for the majority of their lifespans, that would surely eliminate the majority of animal suffering overall. I don't get why someone who claims to be concerned about animal welfare wouldn't promote such efforts.

I find it a bit silly because "ethical" is a vague term that can be interpreted in many different ways. For instance, some people will still not think that the dairy's practices are "ethical", if the end result is the same, i.e. slaughtering the animals.

I'm confused as to how this would be ambiguous. If an animal is born in captivity it will probably be killed for meat at some point, that's just math...

I am pretty sure they're just saying that after 6 months they aren't suckling anyway and are grassfed through being a yearling until they're adults. Few farms will talk about killing their animals, of course, keeping what is happening sterile in appearance is pretty important for keeping the amount people eat high.

I hope none of that is controversial, it can always be assumed that animals born on a farm ultimately are eaten as meat... I'm a vegetarian and I'm not thrilled about it, but that's just math =/

> Few farms will talk about killing their animals, of course, keeping what is happening sterile in appearance is pretty important for keeping the amount people eat high

That's exactly what I was trying to point out. Animal product industries have so many different ways in which they're cruel to animals - e.g., for dairy, the things I pointed out that are missing from the posted webpage - that individual companies can try to make themselves look better/ethical by pointing out the one or two things they're doing better than average, while omitting all of the other horrific parts of the pipeline (as another poster in this thread said, "ethics-washing").

> I think it's obvious that the calves and some of the cows are eventually sent for slaughter. A small dairy like the one above can only maintain so many animals at a time.

Why is that obvious? Who handles the slaughter? It raises the question about this particular place demonstrating their ethics (they went with the name ethical dairy!) but also leaving out valid questions about the animals. In terms of ethics, is it better if the slaughter was handled by the same farm that raised the animals? Because, is it still 'ethical' if after highlighting how well you treat the animals, and after the utility of the animals has ceased, you pass them on to another system that may not treat them as well? On a linked page[1] they say: "Eventually the cows and the bull calves will enter the food chain for meat." and it just seems like such a weird way of phrasing to distance the reader from the realities. (They mention they send them for slaughter but do some in-house: "Around half of our bull calves are finished on our farm" -- again, using the phrasing 'finished' to distance the reader from the realities of it.)

> This is a dairy farm, so it should not be expected to abide by the ethics of vegan people.

I don't think anyone has suggested that. The initial critique was just for what was not said.

[1] https://www.theethicaldairy.co.uk/blog/ethical-dairy-system

edit: corrected 'may not' and added sentence on 'finished'

> again, using the phrasing 'finished' to distance the reader from the realities of it.

Generally, finishing refers to a final fattening or other feeding meant to prepare the animal for slaughter. For example, link 1 is one of the first that came up in a search for cattle finishing. Being able to finish half of their bull calves means they are keeping that many on their farm, likely on pasture and in sane conditions, rather than shipping them to feedlots.

Edit: They then ship them to the abbatoir for slaughter.

https://www.agriculture.com/livestock/cattle/to-capitalize-o...

Thanks for that. I learned something here.

On a related note, is 'abbatoir' the prefered term in the industry over 'slaughterhouse'?

In my experience1, it is more common in European writings. American usage seems to be mainly by those who reject the "industrial agricultural complex" in favor of farms which provide more natural environments and biodiversity.

1 I grew up on a small "grass farm" reading Stockman Grass Farmer, Joel Salatin's writings, etc. and still pay some attention to what goes on.

I have no problem with animals being slaughtered for food. We are all part of the food chain. But I have to agree, it really rubs me wrong way when people use terms like “harvest“ or “finish” when they really mean slaughter.

One of my summer jobs was being an aux. accountant to a set of dairy farms. One of the biggest expenditures was antibiotics and antidepressants. We really should rethink our relation with farm animals because this system is not sustainable for our health or the animal's.

Can you tell us more about the use of antidepressants?

It was mixed with the dry foods to the cows that just were pregnant and got the calf removed.

They should be sent to pasture at month seven, destined to live out the natural lifespan of a cow and die a rather unremarkable and dignified death of old age, having grazed upon the fields and enriched its soil with their manure. They can also be used for humane harvesting of methane. They should, of course, be spayed and neutered as well, and children can pay to pet their cute noses and dress them up in funny costumes during holiday season. This suggestion is not the advice of some militant vegan (on the contrary, I am but a lowly flexitarian, who believes that most animal products are destined for the wastebin of history), nay I am but a hopeful wandering utilitarian, who happened to alight upon this most recurrent and delectable of controversies.

Following the intra-site link provided in the first paragraph:

https://www.theethicaldairy.co.uk/blog/ethical-dairy-system

>We are not a slaughter free dairy and we do not pretend to be. For people who are interested in slaughter free dairy we recommend ahimsa milk. Eventually the cows and the bull calves will enter the food chain for meat.

5 years is still infinitely more than 0 which would soon become the natural life span of dairy cows if veganism won a complete victory and everyone suddenly lost all interest in beef, milk and leather.

In terms of interesting things that are not mentioned, I'd really much rather hear what this style of farming consumes more of as this sheds light on whether it has any applicability beyond supplying luxury goods. We are told 90% less antibiotics, half the energy and so on and so forth; well all these cost money so presumably if they use much less energy and antibiotics per same yield and have not rolled up the industry there must be valuable things they consume more of. What are they, and is there realistic hope they can be rendered less harmful than consuming 10x the antibiotics and 2x the energy etc?

Better to have lived short and suffered than not to have been born at all?

If it helps with our environmental catastrophe I’m alright with many fewer cows being born, particularly since the lives we bring them into is so full of suffering.

Given the choice of not being born and being born into harsh conditions that result in an unhappy life and an early death, most people would take the 0.

Of the many cows I've met in my life few seemed to be weighed down by the harsh conditions of their existence and burdened by foreknowledge of their early death. Maybe a cow contemplating your existence would similarly wonder how you could possibly bear it?

In any case compared to a lot of life both cows and humans seem to me to be doing pretty well in terms of realistically attainable levels of happiness and life expectancy. We don't die an agonizing death from horrendous facial tumours spread by periodically chewing each others' faces off and being literally eaten alive by our offspring is not the pinnacle of our existence.

Farmer and omnivore here. Nicely put. Your comment was accurate and evenhanded. I love how you state your bias up front. Duly upvoted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com