What are we doing to our cows?

Today's cows are worked as `a high performance machine, as highly tuned as a racing car . . . and like a car that's pushed flat out . . . it goes bust more easily'. So said John Webster, Professor of Animal Husbandry at Bristol University, and quoted in The Independent, 29 June 1991. It seems that the milking cow is run like a machine on the edge of a physiological breakdown: nine months in milk, nine months in calf, and six months both pregnant and lactating. She is likely to last only until her fifth year before exhaustion sets in accompanied by a growing catalogue of painful illnesses, such as lameness, damaged udders and reproductive failure. By comparison, cows kept for breeding beef often live until eighteen to twenty years of age. In America, according to Andrew Kimbrell, attorney at the Foundation of Economic Trends in Washington:

`The American dairy industry is in a mess. It has become so intensive that cows are suffering from complete burn-out, . . . [leading to] infections such as bovine leukemia and the bovine equivalent of Aids. We've increased production so much that we've destroyed the cow's immune system'.

Perils in the Pinta

Genetically engineered milk will further worsen the situation. Injection of Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) or Bovine Somatotrophin (BST) can increase milk yield yet further by 15%. The American consumer has said no to BST, but on both sides of the Atlantic there is a powerful lobby from the pharmaceutical industry, which has invested 0.5 billion in its development and predicts sales of $1 billion annually. The churchman, John Gummer, Minister of Agriculture, appears committed to BST, whilst it awaits approval. He has said:

`We have not got to be Luddite. The idea that Britain should stand aside while allowing everyone else to produce milk in the modern way is barmy...'

In view of our present EC milk surplus of 14%, increased milk yields hardly seem necessary. But what about the effects of BST? It will lead to an increase in the incidence of painful mastitis (inflammation of the udder), and also the frequent injections will produce swellings. The effect of BST upon humans, absorbed from the mouth or intestines, has not yet been investigated. Some have declared it totally safe - without acknowledging the lack of research.

The Victorians knew better

Over 100 years ago, some Victorian farmers in Yorkshire made a comparison of various sheep breeds. The cost of fodder consumed was deducted from the value of mutton and wool produced. The most profitable turned out to be the Lincoln and the Shropshire Down, both now minority breeds. This work was described in The Ark, the Journal of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, August 1991. In this article, it is said that such breeds have been largely pushed aside because today's livestock is selected for high production -

`almost irrespective of cost . . . The Meat and Livestock Commission give high priority to intensive stocking rates, mindless of the associated higher capital costs and greater management problems.'

There is just a hint today of a few farmers returning to breeds that avoid the pitfalls of intensification and retain the qualities that were more valued in earlier times.

God knows best!

Once again, Genesis provides the key to dealing with man's short-term, selfish agricultural goals. God told mankind to `till' and `keep' the Garden of Eden. The words in Hebrew are abad: `to work' or `to serve', even `to be a slave to', and shamar: meaning `to keep, watch or preserve'. So the descendants of Adam should keep the Earth in a way that both serves and preserves the beasts. In this way, both man and animals will benefit to the full. Man's desire for productivity will be in harmony with his concern for the animal's welfare.

It is possible that evolutionary perspectives have had a harmful effect, both on the way animals have been bred to maximise their productivity, and on the new developments with hormone injection. It is as though people think that they can mould animals to suit their immediate requirements, and that there are no limits to variability. Creationists thank God for the variability which we can make use of in domestic animals. However, we also believe that there are limits to the selective changes that are possible, and that the closer we approach these limits, the more vulnerable the organisms become and the more dependent they are on man for survival.

Society appears to be guilty of manipulating animals for commercial gain and low-cost foods. It is easy to close one's eyes to the issues and let matters take their course. However, we are all consumers of food: we ought to feel some responsibility for the practices adopted to produce it for us. As Christian stewards, we know that our dominion over creation is a delegated dominion, and we are responsible to God for the way we treat his world. Admittedly, responding to the situation is actually quite difficult: few of us have any direct influence over these developments. Some people have chosen to write to their political leaders; others have petitioned local food suppliers; we can try to exercise some selection in the way we purchase food; etc. However we respond, let us do it as God's people, demonstrating that we care about the world in which we live.

Sheena E.B. Tyler (1991)

******

Return to the Creation and the environment Page
Return to the BCS Home Page