Beef cattle begin their lives as they always have – in pasture or on the range. What has changed significantly in recent years is the amount of time they spend there and what happens to them when they leave.
At the beginning of the last century, steers were 4 or 5 years of age at slaughter. That dropped to 2 or 3 years by the 1950s, and to just 14 to 16 months today, only the first 6 to 8 months of which is spent grazing (60).


Today, after being weaned, cattle leave the farm or ranch for the feedlot to be fattened up for slaughter. Feedlots are virtual cattle cities, with up to 115,000 inhabitants – crowded, barren and filthy. Cattle exist crowded into pens with dozens of other animals, breathing in noxious fumes and standing or lying in mud and waste.


The enormous weight gain that allows a calf to go from 80 pounds at birth to 1,200 pounds within 14 months is accomplished with the use of a grain diet, protein supplements, antibiotics and growth hormones. The typical steer arrives at the feedlot weighing approximately 800 pounds and on average, leaves 6 months later, having eaten 5,000 pounds of feed to gain 600 pounds in weight.

To make cattle easier to handle during the fattening or “finishing” process they are subjected to mutilations, including castration and dehorning – almost always without the benefit of any pain relief. For identification purposes, many cattle are branded with a hot iron. They are also handled and moved by the application of aversive techniques, such as shouting, hitting and shocking with electrical prods. Cattle are trucked from farm to auction, from auction to feedlot and from feedlot to slaughter, on crowded, noisy vehicles without access to food and water, or space to rest.
All these practices – weaning, grain feeding, mutilations, handling and transport – are capable of causing significant pain and distress to cattle. The practices, as well as the welfare problems that can result, are described in this report.



Stocker operations often confine arriving calves for 21 to 45 days in a barren drylot in order to administer antibiotics to those identified as ill. Forcing calves to cope with dusty and muddy pens, feed bunks, waterers and new feed increases stress in calves already stressed by weaning and transport (54). A study conducted by Kansas State University compared the effects of stocker drylot treatment programs with stocker pasture programs at three field sites in Kansas (54). The average morbidity rate for pasture treatment at the three sites was 10%, versus 60% for the drylot treatment, and only 5% of pasture cattle received re-treatment, while 27% of drylot cattle were treated more than once (54).

2.2 Weaning
Weaning is considered perhaps the greatest source of stress for calves (46). Weaning occurs naturally in cattle as part of the transition to adulthood, but in beef production, a young calf is forcibly denied its mother’s milk and social contact with her and other adult cattle (67). Weaning is not allowed to occur normally when the cow and calf are ready but is instead determined by management factors such as calf age and weight, cow condition, forage availability, market prices, and cash flow (79).


Weaning is especially stressful when other management practices like vaccination, castration and dehorning are performed at the same time (81). Cattle operations frequently perform these procedures together to avoid extra labor and handling of the animals. Weaning is also frequently followed closely by transport of the animal to an auction or feedlot (47).

3. Feedlots
Cattle feedlots are mainly located in the central US near areas of high grain production and slaughter plants (12). Over 70% of all cattle finished in the US are fed in just three states – Nebraska, Kansas and Texas (68). According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (86), in 2004 there were more than 90,000 US operations for feeding cattle. Housing cattle in a high-density situation and forcing them to undergo a large and rapid weight gain causes significant health and welfare problems.


3.1 Environmental Conditions
Being fed from a bunk in a high-density situation is very different from the pasture grazing that cattle are accustomed to, which can result in physical and social problems. Cattle in feedlots gain weight quickly but have little opportunity for exercise. Their legs are not sufficiently strong to support the abnormally heavy body, and consequences such as cartilage damage, limb pain and difficulties in standing and lying may result (18).



3.2 Antibiotics
Antibiotics are routinely fed to feedlot cattle to keep the animals from getting sick. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that 70% of all antibiotics used in the US each year are fed to livestock and poultry “not to treat illness, but to promote slightly faster growth and to prevent disease that would otherwise result from crowded, stressful, and unhygienic conditions” (3).



3.3 Hormones
Cattle in feedlots in the US routinely receive growth hormone implants even though measurable hormone residues can be detected in the meat Americans eat.


3.5 Morbidity & Mortality
Morbidity is highest during the first 45 days in the feedlot (12). This is because feedlot calves experience a significant amount of stress during the marketing process and upon arrival at the feedlot (46). Newly arrived calves must acclimate to mud, manure, poor air quality and exposure to new social groupings and disease-producing pathogens (46).



4. Mutilations
Bath (8) identified a total of 24 potentially painful procedures performed on farm animals by farmers and ranchers, 19 of which are performed on cattle. The procedures include several mutilations, such as branding, dehorning and castration. These procedures are done in order to make the raising of large numbers of animals more efficient and convenient for the operator. Mutilations are often performed by laypersons with little or no training, and the animals are regularly subjected to the procedures without the benefit of any form of pain relief (8).


4.1 Branding
Hot-iron branding causes a third degree burn that has been shown to be painful to beef cattle (93). Freeze branding also results in a stress response in cattle, but the reaction is less severe than that observed with hot branding (44, 45, 63). Cattle subjected to both freeze and hot-iron branding show elevated blood stress hormone levels, elevated heart rates and greater escape-avoidance reactions (44, 45), and increased behaviors indicative of pain (63) compared to cattle subjected to “sham” branding (holding a room-temperature brander against the hide). The finding that freeze branding causes pain, but less so than hot-iron branding, has been shown to apply to beef cattle (63), dairy cattle (44) and crossbred cattle (45).



4.2 Dehorning
Because horns can cause bruising and hide damage that reduces the value of carcasses, the horns of beef cattle are often removed (82), almost always without the benefit of analgesia.

4.3 Castration
According to Goodrich and Stricklin (20), male cattle are routinely castrated to prevent physically or genetically inferior males from reproducing, to reduce the aggressive nature of intact males and to improve meat quality. Under modern feedlot conditions, however, mating is prevented by segregation of the sexes, and cattle are slaughtered at such young ages that differences in flesh from castrated and uncastrated males are slight (75).

Castration is accomplished by three devices: knife, the emasculator (plier-like device that crushes the spermatic cord and blood vessels to the testicles) and the elastrator (rubber ring placed over the testes that causes necrosis and eventual sloughing off of the testicles).


5. Handling
Cattle are moved by a number of methods that are aversive to the animals, including roping, shouting, hitting, tail twisting, and shocking with an electrical prod (55).


5.5 Downed Cows
“Downed” animals are farm animals too sick or injured to walk on their own. Owing to their size and weight, it is very difficult – if not impossible – to move downed cattle humanely. Non-ambulatory animals are frequently subjected to unnecessary pain and distress when they are dragged onto or off of trucks by the use of ropes or chains, or moved from one location to another by being scooped up with bucket loaders or forklifts.


This mistreatment often results in injuries ranging from bruises and abrasions to broken bones and torn ligaments. While specific devices have been designed to move non-ambulatory animals, many farms, livestock markets and slaughter establishments do not have this equipment available. Because downed animals are immobile, they cannot get to food and water troughs. They may lie for hours or days without having their most basic physical needs met, and many die of gross neglect. Observations at livestock markets have shown disabled cattle being left to suffer without food, water, shade or veterinary attention; being kicked or beaten; being thrown, dragged by the neck, or picked up by an ear or limb; being trampled by other animals in common pens; and being thrown alive onto piles of dead animals.


Although the issue of non-ambulatory animals is frequently considered a problem associated with the dairy industry, cattle raised for beef production may also go down and become victims of mistreatment. USDA estimates put the number of downed cattle and calves in the U.S. at 450,000 for the year 2004 (87). Of these, 160,000 were non-ambulatory cattle and calves on beef cow operations (87). According to the USDA, 49,700 beef cow operations reported non-ambulatory cattle and calves in 2004 (87).



6. Transport
“In Tennessee, for instance, the lighter feeder cattle are generally weaned on the same day that they leave a comparatively small farm. From there they may be taken to the local sale barn to be sorted, displayed, sold, and resorted, giving them ample opportunity to become exposed to pathogens during a period of 24 to 48 hours without feed and water. After the sale, the calves may be transported to an order buyer’s barn for holding and sorting into appropriate groups for sale to custom feedlot clients. They may be kept by the order buyer from 2 to 10 days, with adequate water and minimal hay available until an order or consignment is filled and shipment is made. During the approximately 1,600-km journey to Texas by truck, which takes from 30 to 40 hours, there is neither feed, nor water, no unloading for rest.” (29)



6.1 Deprivation of Food & Water
Food and water are not available on US transport trucks and cattle are seldom off-loaded to be fed and watered, regardless of the length of the journey.

The researchers concluded that their experiments “may indicate that 18 hours is too long an interval for heifers to remain without food and water…” (43).



6.5 Transport of Calves
Comparatively few healthy calves actually die during transport, but a large number become ill or die of secondary disease within a month as a result of their inability to respond to the stress of transport (36). Staples and Haugse (64) studied mortality and morbidity among young calves imported into North Dakota and found that nearly 20% of calves seven days old or less died, and 64% showed signs of illness, within the first 4 weeks after purchase (64). Among calves 8 to 14 days of age, 22% died and 59% became ill within 4 weeks of purchase (64). In research conducted in Texas by Cole et al. (11), of 100 calves, 12 died and 39 were treated for respiratory tract disease during the first 20 days after transport to a feedlot.



7. Conclusion
Because beef cattle still live a portion of their lives in pasture or on the range, under the conditions for which they evolved, cattle ranching is often viewed as the least problematic of all modern animal production systems. However, the feedlot is essentially just another factory farming model, comparable to drylots for dairy cows, or even to battery cages for laying hens or confined feeding operations for pigs. In each case the animals are confined to crowded quarters, fed an unnatural diet, mutilated to make handling easier, and fed antibiotics and/or hormones to prevent illness and promote growth. Like other intensively raised animals, beef cattle are subjected to aversive and stressful handling practices, transported long distances in crowded vehicles without food, water or rest, and slaughtered after having lived only a fraction of their natural lifespan.


No federal laws protect the welfare of beef cattle in the U.S., other than the Humane Method of Slaughter Act that requires humane handling and stunning of livestock before slaughter. The U.S. cattle industry has failed to set meaningful standards for the care and handling of beef cattle, or to take a stand in opposition to any of the various practices that result in physical or behavioral problems for animals. The industry has also failed to implement any type of welfare audit system for cattle operations and has taken the position that such audits are unnecessary.



*Cut down in size- original article @: www.farmsanctuary.org/campaig...port.htm

Factory farms in the United States are producing 350 million tons of manure each year, polluting miles of rivers and lakes and contaminating groundwater. Every year, tens of thousands of wild animals are killed in government- sponsored “predator-control” programs because the meat industry claims these animals interfere with grazing, farmed animals. Valuable water and land resources are squandered for meat production, while the planet’s 800 million malnourished people could be fed if these resources were used to produce plant foods.


Global Hunger and Dwindling Resources
A vegetarian diet can feed significantly more people than a meat-centered diet. More than 840 million people in the world are malnourished, yet over 70 percent of the U.S. grain harvest and 80 percent of its corn harvest is fed to farmed animals. The grain consumed by animals could feed 800 million hungry people, according to Cornell University research.

Valuable water resources are also squandered for meat production. For every pound of meat produced, grain-fed animals utilize over 13,000 gallons of water. A pound of soybeans requires only about 260 gallons of water.

Intensive animal agriculture is a vast user of fossil fuel, mainly for the production of feed. "Assuming (a steer) continues to eat 25 pounds of corn a day and reaches a weight of 1,250 pounds, he will have consumed in his lifetime roughly 284 gallons of oil. We have succeeded in industrializing the beef calf, transforming what was once a solar-powered ruminant into the very last thing we need: another fossil-fuel machine.” (New York Times Magazine, "Power Steer" by Michel Pollan, March 2003.)



Green food, green planet
As an environmentally conscious person, if you were told that eliminating a single category of luxury consumer products from your daily routine could cut water consumption in half, fossil fuel consumption by one-third, and drastically reduce key sources of pollution, would you choose to act?

What are these everyday luxury items? Animal products used as food. No other single consumer choice can have as positive an environmental impact as the decision to renounce animal products from your diet.

Millions of vegans and vegetarians enjoy excellent health and live longer lives than their meat-eating counterparts, and medical studies prove that animal flesh, milk and eggs are not a necessity to the human diet, but rather a luxury with far-reaching environmental implications. The apparent low cost of these items on grocery store shelves may seem to be at odds with the notion that animal products are a luxury, but an examination of the real costs — especially in regard to environmental impact — clearly prove that animal products cost society dearly.



Every precious drop
Responsible consumers are also seeking to reduce their domestic water consumption with efficient, low-flow plumbing devices. When a consumer installs a low-flow showerhead, however, the amount of water saved over the course of a year (about 1,100 gallons) is less than the amount of water squandered if that same consumer purchases just one pound of beef (2,500 gallons).3 A package of chicken breasts, or a factory farm-raised salmon, exploits nearly the same amount of precious water. The production of animal products accounts for half the fresh water used in the U.S.4

A study published in Bioscience estimates that it requires 2,500 gallons of water to produce just one pound of beef, whereas a mere 250 gallons of water are necessary to cultivate one pound of soybeans. The humble potato requires just 62.5 gallons of water per pound of crop. That makes beef 50 times more costly than soy and 200 times more costly than potatoes when it comes to water use. 5

A single dairy cow drinks an average of 29 gallons of water each day, but returns just eight gallons of milk daily. Thus, milk production is small compared to the rate of water consumption, particularly when an additional 40 gallons used for sanitation brings the total daily water use per cow up to 69 gallons.6

Animal production is also the leading source of pollution in freshwater bodies across the United States. On the Delmarva peninsula, which juts out between the Chesapeake and Delaware bays, poultry industries are blamed for nitrogen-saturated waste runoff into fragile watersheds, regularly resulting in algae blooms and the death or contamination of uncountable multitudes of fish, crabs and aquatic plants.7 This preventable damage may permanently alter the ecological balance, biodiversity and sustainability of two of the East Coast's largest and most essential freshwater bays.8

This dangerous pattern of environmental damage — a direct result of factory farming — is recurring throughout the country, forcing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify agricultural runoff as a primary pollution source for the 60% of U.S. rivers and streams it considers "impaired."12

For consumers, there is no refuge when it comes to drinking water: Even the bottled water aisle isn't safe from the hazards of factory farming. Bottled water comes from either ground water or surface water, and both draw waters from sources replenished by rain and other surface water. The increasing use of manure lagoons and "deep pit" manure handling systems, used by intensive factory farms and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), result in massive storage systems that impact all ground water supplies

Nitrates, pathogens and salts from manure contaminate ground water as lagoons and pits leach their content into once-pristine water sources used for municipal water supplies, wells, crop irrigation, and bottled water producers.


Vegetarians have great impact on water savings, a savings that literally multiplies as it moves through the food animal creation process. Firstly, the water consumed by food animals is saved. Secondly, the water used in crop cultivation dedicated to animal feeds is saved. That's the biggest savings. Additionally, the coincidental damage to water supplies from cattle trampling over delicate stream beds, leaky hog manure pool seepage into fresh water, and nitrogen-saturated agricultural runoff are all eradicated when you choose to go veg.



Deep Doo-doo
Nationwide, animal agriculture produces 1.37 billion tons of manure: 130 times more than human waste and equivalent to five tons for every individual human. The manure from a 200-head dairy operation produces as much nitrogen as the sewage output of a town of up to 10,000 people.

The Delmarva Peninsula is home to 600 million chickens, which produce over 3.2 billion pounds of waste each year, containing as much nitrogen as the waste from a city of 500,000 people.17 Each dairy cow produces over 120 pounds of waste each day, 12 times as much as each person, or a total of 22 tons per cow, per year.18



Home, Home on the... parched earth
Going vegan saves valuable forest acreage both within the United States and abroad. At home, dramatic increases in the consumption of animal products means evermore forest, field, wetland, and wilds are pressed into service as grazing lands or grain croplands essential for meat production. Nearly 87% of our agricultural land, and 45% of the entire U.S. landmass, are engaged in animal production.19

\Throughout Central and South America, where farming families are desperate to hold a few sustaining acres, miles of countryside are engaged in beef production for U.S. markets, in addition to grain production designed to cheaply supply the vast and growing U.S. need for animal feed.20

Where cropland used to sustain 21 inches of topsoil, overgrazing, over-cropping, and deforestation in some regions have depleted the depth of topsoil to less than six inches.22

There is little room left for the expansion of agricultural land, a necessity, should we continue to feed the world's ever-growing population the current animal-centered diet.

Increases in population also result in demands on land use for housing, roads and industry, a breakdown of roughly one acre for each American.24 By 2020, the world may see one billion fewer acres available for farmland.25 As the world faces the prospect of feeding more people on less land or degraded land, the luxury of meat may become untenable, or may become a consumption pattern that separates the world's rich from the growing masses of disadvantaged people who struggle to obtain basic staple plant foods.



Can't see the forest for the steer
Each of us who chooses a plant-based diet personally saves an acre of trees each year.

Central and South American grazing and feed grain production are a leading economic force behind rainforest depletion; nearly 80% of rainforests have been destroyed, with most of the former forest land engaged in meat production.26 Every McDonald's Quarter-Pounder costs Mother Nature a shameful 55-square-feet of forest land.27

Fast food chains and other meat retailers shield themselves from being criticized as rainforest killers by announcing that they buy from U.S. suppliers. There is slim truth to this claim, as current U.S. law does not require packing plants and wholesalers to declare the nation of origin of their products. Consequently, if McDonald's purchases beef from a packer in Texas, the hamburger conglomerate says it buys American and provides itself political cover. While the paper trail tied to meat is impossible to follow, the U.S. is the world's top beef importer.28 So, where's the foreign beef?



Air today gone tomorrow?
Meat is a one-two punch to the atmosphere. Deforestation reduces our planet's natural ability to replenish life-giving oxygen, while the massive numbers of food animals and their waste produce ammonia (which is toxic in high concentrations, such as those found in factory farms) and methane, a leading "greenhouse gas."

Animals and their waste combine to contribute 27% of global methane production.29 Animal products' heavy fossil fuel toll makes it a major source of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas.30



Got petroleum?
Significantly, Americans consume nearly as much fossil fuel at the supermarket as at the gas pump. The typical American burns about 530 gallons of gas each year driving, and eating a meat-based diet gobbles up an additional 400 gallons of oil per person.31 Meanwhile, a vegan's food requirements necessitate just 40 gallons of fuel yearly.31B

Most foods require fuel to grow, process, package, and ship. One acre of corn in the U.S. requires approximately 140 gallons of oil to produce.32 By way of world standards, this is relatively inefficient, but if the corn is consumed directly by people, the energy investment is maximized. If the corn goes to livestock, however, only about one-fifth of the protein is returned as food, and four-fifths of it is lost.33

Protein conversion is just one chapter in the story of fossil fuel waste in meat production. When processing, transportation, heating, cooling, and other points of consumption are added into the mix, vegetable foods are ten times more efficient than animal products.34 Without making any other lifestyle change, going vegan cuts overall fossil fuel consumption by at least 360 gallons. The vegan's fossil fuel savings is equivalent to those realized by trading an SUV for a 40 miles-per-gallon compact vehicle.35



Vegan = Green
With the impacts on land, water, fossil fuels, and biodiversity taken together, the choice to go vegan is the single, most powerful pro-environment choice a consumer can make. No other decision holds the potential to do as much for the environment as the choice to go vegan.


*Slightly cut down- original link: www.vegforlife.org/earth.htm