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 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 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 =/
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").