Hacker News Reader

Comment by Falling3 | Hacker News Reader

I realize I'm coming at this from a different angle than a lot of other HNers, but for me this is good science gone wrong.

Dairy cows are some of the most mistreated and unhealthy animals in the agriculture system. This push for efficiency has created a large group of animals with very little genetic diversity. They are kept on a stream of antibiotics because one bad outbreak can take down the entire group. They often develop mastitis and cancer is common by the they are 5 or 6 ("retirement age") due to poor nutrition, over-milking, and living conditions.

This kind of science really excites me, but the applications are almost always depressing and we should absolutely not be lauding squeezing out every last "inefficiency" in an animal based industry.

View on HN

My guess is that you haven't spent any actual time on dairy farms. Early in my career I worked in the fertilizer business and a large part of my customer base were dairy farmers.

I worked with dairy farmers with as few as 100 cows and as many as 1200. These were family farms and they cared well for the animals. Antibiotics were only used on sick cows and not as a daily regimen. I really respect those guys, most of them are far better businessmen than the tradesmen in town.

The few times that I saw animals mistreated were farmers who weren't very long for the dairy business.

As with most agriculture in the US (assuming you're talking about the US), family farms are the exception - not the rule.

"In 2010, of all the farms in the United States with at least $1 million in revenues, 88 percent were family farms, and they accounted for 79 percent of production." -- http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/the-triu...

> as few as 100 cows and as many as 1200

I think those are actually pretty small numbers, and might not even count as CAFOs (confined animal feeding operation), right?

In Michigan a large CAFO is 700 or more dairy cows:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-npdes-CAFO-rules-fi...

I know that farms much smaller than that have to abide by some of the CAFO rules such as having approved manure application plans.

Several of Michigan's larger farms use the manure to generate their own electricity.

Yeah, I saw similar numbers from EPA docs when I decided I might want to back up my comment, thanks :) but what I'd like to know is what the median size of a dairy farm in the US is, and what proportion of the milk we drink comes from larger operations like those described here, with head counts of 15-20,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_farming#Animal_waste_from...

(Of course I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable and those specifics seem to be lacking citations)

There's this prevalent stereotype about vegans that they are very naive and get all of their information from peta and the like. I've worked with hundreds of farm animals and seen conditions even on small family farms. I've been in contact with many animals that were neglected and abused from small farms. Of course the situations are the worst on CAFOs, but certainly not limited to them. I'm sure I have a higher standard than most, but the farms that even approach respectful treatment of animals are in a tiny minority. And those are the products for which you pay a large premium.

Lots of worse inbreeding problems - show dogs, fish etc.

I live in Iowa, sorry I haven't seen the mistreatment you mention. I'm sure its a problem, any time large amounts of animals become dollars. Puppy mills, fish farms. But compared to beef cattle, dairy have it made.

I'm not even sure humans are immune. Talk about a constant stream of antibiotics, low genetic diversity, inhumane living conditions, cancer rates.

Not to run off on a tangent, but you're wrong about the dairy beef comparison. Before heading to a feedlot, most beef cattle spend around a year of their lives grazing often allowed to stay with their mothers. Beef cattle are killed much sooner, but have something resembling a natural life for a time. Newborn dairy calves are removed almost immediately so no milk is wasted on them. Male dairy cows are used for veal (and I'm sure you know how that goes). The females are placed into small "igloos" with no chance for grazing or physical contact until they are old enough to reproduce. Then it's 4 or 5 years of constant pregnancy and milking until they are "spent" at the ripe ole age of 6.

I'm honestly not trying to be preachy here as I know this isn't the appropriate venue, but this is just not an area I feel anyone should be commending for their efficiency.

I grew up on a dairy farm, and while I'm sure some farmers operate exactly as you describe, I'm not sure you should paint the whole industry with one brush. Every farmer has their own opinions on how their operation should be operated, so every farm will be vastly different.

> They are kept on a stream of antibiotics

This was never true on our farm. Cows would be treated if sick, but that is it. I don't even remember them being sick all that often. The biggest problems were always related to calving complications (see below).

> They often develop mastitis

This largely came down to choices made by the animal, like laying in the muck even when there's a nice fresh bed of straw nearby. No farmer wants to see a cow with mastitis, even if just for profit reasons so you always do your best to try to avoid the problem.

> The females are placed into small "igloos" with no chance for grazing or physical contact until they are old enough to reproduce.

You mean until they are old enough to feed on their own. The reason they are individualized in early life is because otherwise the stronger calves will eat all of the food and who wants to see a calf starve? Even while in the hutch ("igloo"), the calves are free to interact with the nearby calves in other hutches.

> Male dairy cows are used for veal (and I'm sure you know how that goes).

I'm not sure the general population does know how that goes. I've heard all kinds of horrific stories about how veal calves, specifically, are mistreated. The only differentiator for veal is the age of the animal, otherwise they live like any other beef calf.

> Then it's 4 or 5 years of constant pregnancy and milking until they are "spent" at the ripe ole age of 6.

I remember plenty of cows that were milked for far longer, but we definitely lost a lot during calving, and as a result of that 4-5 years probably isn't far off the average milking span. Sadly, calving is hard on the animal. To be fair, this is something humans equally struggled with until the advent of modern medicine.

And you may be aware that the family farm of previous generations is not what it used to be. Your family may have been a step ahead most of today's farms, but I still take issue with several of your points.

>You mean until they are old enough to feed on their own. The reason they are individualized in early life is because otherwise the stronger calves will eat all of the food and who wants to see a calf starve? Even while in the hutch ("igloo"), the calves are free to interact with the nearby calves in other hutches.

No I don't. The only reason that would be an issue is if they are not drinking milk naturally from the mother. All across the Midwest are small and medium sized cattle ranches with calves of all ages getting on just fine. The biggest reason is they must be separated from the mother otherwise the farmer is losing money. And I honestly have not seen a single case where calves are free to interact with each other. They're either tied up or fenced in.

>I'm not sure the general population does know how that goes. I've heard all kinds of horrific stories about how veal calves, specifically, are mistreated. The only differentiator for veal is the age of the animal, otherwise they live like any other beef calf.

I'm actually surprised you said this because it's 100% wrong. Veal in the US is almost exclusively the male offspring of dairy cows - usually Holsteins. They are never beef breeds and their lives are extremely different. In order to get the tender meat, they are put on a formula deficient in Iron and either tied up or kept in small crates, which I have witnessed many times. This combination produces the light, tender meat veal is known for. I have a very hard time accepting you didn't know any of this having grown up on a dairy farm.

>Sadly, calving is hard on the animal. To be fair, this is something humans equally struggled with until the advent of modern medicine.

It sure is. It's a tremendous amount of stress to put on a female's body. That's the issue.

> And you may be aware that the family farm of previous generations is not what it used to be.

Indeed. We poured a lot of money into improving the lives of the animals through the years. Things are definitely better than it used to be for the animals. The conditions in some of these modern barns are worlds ahead of the past. Are all things perfect? Probably not, but it is a process.

> The biggest reason is they must be separated from the mother otherwise the farmer is losing money.

I do not deny that the calf is separated from the mother, but that is quite different to being individually penned up for years as you claimed. I don't know of any dairy farmer who keeps the calves individualized beyond the first month or so.

> I have a very hard time accepting you didn't know any of this having grown up on a dairy farm.

The veal we raised, once they were weaned from the milk, ate mainly grasses, and corn in their final days. The same diet we fed the beef cattle. The only real difference being that they went to market as a smaller animal. If you missed that window, they got sent to market as regular beef cattle.

There is milk-fed veal that you speak of too, but it seems to be less common in my experience. I know that some farmers do kept them tied up in small crates, but you're painting a whole industry with a small brush again. One abusive farmer doesn't mean that all farmers are abusive.

For what it is worth, I'm in Canada. Maybe the US has stricter definitions about what constitutes as veal, I don't know.

I will amend that Canada has supply management for dairy. American dairy farmers are, on the whole, far less wealthy. Perhaps that's where the discrepancy comes into play? I imagine if you cannot make ends meet, the animals will suffer. I really don't see things being nearly as bad as you make it out to be here though.

Maybe some of the disconnect is the fact that we're talking about different countries. Veal is quite different here, and I don't think it's a matter of strict definitions. It's just a matter of efficiency and what people like. Here are some numbers about what the makeup of the industry is like: http://www.dairyherd.com/e-newsletters/dairy-daily/141067953.... I think broad brushes are entirely appropriate.

We do have a depressing lack of welfare laws for farm animals here, and that surely has a lot to do with it.

> We do have a depressing lack of welfare laws for farm animals here, and that surely has a lot to do with it.

One thing I always like to point out is that we have completely stopped growing GMO soybeans on our farm because the market demanded it. Consumers have a lot of control over the actions of farmers. You really don't need legislation to start solving the problems you see, you just have to start asking for what you want changed.

I believe the Canadian government does not subsidize dairy farming while the USA does so. Specifically, farmer's cooperatives in Canada have self imposed quotas while in the USA, there are no quotas but there are subsidies. Do you think this creates different incentives, resulting in different cattle rearing practices?

That's what I wonder given how grim the parent makes it sound compared to my experiences, but I haven't been around enough farms in the US to say with any absolute certainty.

The average heard size in Canada is about 60 cows and you can make a decent living with that. From what I understand the in US, 60 cows will leave you living in absolute poverty. If you cannot afford to live yourself, I expect the cows won't have much of a life either. But that's just an assumption.

It is a good question though, and especially timely as the Canadian government is seriously leaning towards scrapping the quota system entirely.

> If you cannot afford to live yourself, I expect the cows won't have much of a life either. But that's just an assumption.

That's a fair assumption for a commercial operation. In India, small holders (2-3 cattle) are in majority & the primary use is for tilling fields. Consequently, cattle are considered & treated as family members, rather than as milk producing machines. Even if the farmer has to live frugally, he/she does not ill treat cattle.

> It is a good question though, and especially timely as the Canadian government is seriously leaning towards scrapping the quota system entirely.

Thanks for that info - will be interesting to assess the outcome if the shift happens.

Also, milk/dairy products in general are chocked-full of cow hormones that cause acne, baldness and prostrate cancer in men. It's best to not consume it.

Sources:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18194824

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/qa/2008/PCPTQandA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrotestosterone

The first link is a study that found a correlation between skim milk consumption and acne in teenage boys. It by no means conclusively shows causation. Perhaps teenage boys who have a hormone condition which leads to acne also have taste preferences which cause them to enjoy skim milk more, or perhaps skim milk really causes acne to teenage boys. The point is, we don't know.

The second and third links talk about a study for a prostate cancer drug and a human androgen hormone. The word "milk" does not appear on either of those pages.

Please make an effort to be more careful in your citations. When one adopts the tone and form of authority, by citing links to official looking urls, people sometimes take the advice offered without fact checking. And in this case, it could cause people to stop consuming dairy and start consuming something else, with unknown effects.

edit: The P-Value for skim milk was the only one lower than the .05 significance level. So even in the cited study, there does not appear to be a correlation between whole, 2%, or 1% milk with acne.

Not that it's necessary to pile on more here, but just the quote "It's best to not consume it." is an overreaction.

Assuming that the cited articles actually showed causation, it would have to be a pretty significant risk to say not consuming it would be the best choice. It's a cheap and widely available source of protein and fat. Not everyone has readily available access to food, not to mention the cost of preparing and cooking it. It is, however, annoying that the price has gone up by about 22% in the last 10 years. (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ap)

Dairy is not really a cheap source of protein. Most vegetable sources are cheaper - pulses and whole grains.

>It is, however, annoying that the price has gone up by about 22% in the last 10 years.

No, it's really not that annoying. Many of the other foods on that list have undergone similar increases and that 22% hasn't even kept up with inflation. This is also despite the fact that the dairy industry is pretty heavily subsidized. I'm far more annoyed that the price hasn't gone up more to reflect the true cost of dairy.

So poor people that can't get vegetables should not drink milk, and pay more. Gotcha.

Not sure why I'm being down-voted, there have been several major research studies and they all support this. Ask any dermatologist and they will tell you the same thing. Or read some more of the research papers (a dermatologist operates this website):

http://acnemilk.com/home

"The site is a work in progress and will contain the history of the link between milk and acne, links to scientific articles both published and unpublished, thoughts on the mechanisms involved in the production of acne, and treatment protocols I have used with success in managing thousands of acne patients in over thirty years of dermatology consulting practice."

You are drinking lots of pregnant female cow hormones when you drink milk, eat cheese or butter (which is even worse than plain milk as the DHT is already converted). You're just jacking up your DHT levels and that's like turning on an oil spigot. It is a major player in acne and baldness in men.

Milk consumption has been linked to increased risks of many diseases including ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, bone fracture:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15203374

"In conclusion, we found a positive association between milk consumption and prostate cancer."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15069693

"We observed a 2-fold higher risk of the serous ovarian cancer subtype among those in the highest category of lactose consumption compared to the lowest

"For each 11-gram increase in lactose consumption (the approximate amount in one glass of milk), we observed a 20% increase in risk of serous cancers

"Women who consumed one or more servings of skim or low-fat milk daily had a 32% higher risk of any ovarian cancer and a 69% higher risk of serous ovarian cancer compared to women consuming 3 or less servings monthly

"Our findings provide some support for the hypothesis that lactose intake increases risk of epithelial ovarian cancer."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9224182

"Women who drank two or more glasses of milk per day had relative risks of 1.45 for hip fracture and 1.05 for forearm fracture when compared with women consuming one glass or less per week."

Not only are dairy cows mistreated, their babies are also slaughtered because of milk.

Like any mammals cows only produce milk when they have babies. To keep their milk flowing cows are impregnated constantly. When the babies are born they are taken away from their mothers. Male babies are slaughtered. Dairy cows are also slaughtered at a young age when their milk production drops.

Many people mistakenly thought no animals are harmed in milk production. That is not true.

Don't forget all the people who now save a bit on their milk. This could add up to a significant amount annually, especially for the most poor. I'm not sure that I care about the living conditions of cattle at the expense of the living conditions of humans. Now, if you'd like to tax cattle farmers for the amount of horror and tragedy they create and then redistribute the tax proceeds as a lump sum to all citizens, that should properly balance the ethical situation.

That wont work. Assuming that the reason for the bad plight of the cows is that the worse treatment is more profitable, not that the farmer is sadistic, the farmer has two options: A) Conventional at cost X per unit and B) Animal friendly at cost X+N per unit. Now, to achieve your goal, you tax A at at least N per unit and subsidise B at the same rate. Now, people start buying B in favour of A and the farmers shift production to B, and soon production of A ceases - but as this is the object of the taxation, the tax revenue disappear and with it your budget for subsidising B. B now costs X+N.

Well I for one care about the treatment of other living creatures especially when weighed against what is essentially a luxury product.

If you're really concerned about the living conditions, you'd want more expensive, better quality milk.

I think we'd be better of, as a first step, ending subsidies to dairy farmers and enforcing some basic health and humane regulations. I mean, there are many dairy farms where discarded chicken meat and feces are fed to dairy cows. Here's a story about a guy feeding doughnuts and cookies. http://www.cheeseslave.com/farmer-feeds-doughnuts-and-cookie... Cows have very specialized digestive systems meant for processing grass. Even if we grant that cow's milk is a good thing for us to have, certainly it doesn't apply with diets like that.

Yea, why do you think the diary industry is fighting against raw milk?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com