Buzz
Cattle might appear to be both a simple and an enigmatic subject, but during my research for this list, I realized how each controversy offers a mirror to our own humanity. I recently read *Cow: A Bovine Biography* by Florian Werner (translated by Doris Ecker), which highlights how the deep connection between cattle and humans has influenced various cultural dimensions, from literature to music and art. The book contends that the histories of both humans and cattle are intricately connected, explaining why the cattle industry often sparks so much tension.
Throughout the list, you’ll notice recurring themes, as many of these debates stem from contemporary industrial farming practices. The divide on these issues often comes down to whether we view cattle as mere commodities or as sentient beings. In most instances, my goal is not to take a side, but to present the facts. (And just to clarify, I’m not a vegan.) Feel free to form your own opinions and engage in the discussion on these and other controversial cattle-related topics in the comments.
10. Castration
The wise man said, “This is a male camel. As it matures, it will become difficult to manage. To avoid trouble, you should castrate it.” The young man inquired, “How do I go about doing that, O wise one?” The wise man responded, “Take two large stones, hold one in each hand, place the testicles between them, and bring the stones together swiftly.” “But won’t that cause intense pain?” asked the astonished young man. “Not if you keep your thumbs out of the way,” the wise man replied.
I don’t know the exact origin of this old joke, but it has been circulating for decades, offering a poignant reminder of how we perceive and value our livestock.
Animal welfare advocates argue that bull castration is unnecessary and inhumane, claiming that bulls actually gain weight more effectively and produce more meat than steers, their castrated counterparts. The castration process is not only painful but also exposes the animal to the risk of infection. On the other hand, proponents of castration argue that it helps reduce aggression in cattle and that beef from steers is preferred due to its marbling and tenderness, making it more desirable in the market. Furthermore, aggressive bulls are more likely to damage equipment and pose a danger to both other cattle and their human handlers.
Even among those who support castration, a debate continues about the best time and method for the procedure. Calves heal more quickly from surgical castration than older animals, but this procedure is typically performed without anesthesia. Other methods involve using rubber rings to cut off blood circulation to the testicles, which causes them to eventually fall off. But does this cause more pain for the animal than simply removing the testicles directly?
9. Methods of Slaughter
Animal science professor Temple Grandin has dedicated her career to developing more humane methods of handling livestock in slaughterhouses. Her unique perspective, shaped by her autism, allows her to understand the world from the viewpoint of cows and other animals. This insight has led to numerous innovations aimed at making the animal's final moments as calm and peaceful as possible.
In accordance with her guidance, most cattle today are slaughtered using a captive bolt stunning gun (similar to the one seen in *No Country for Old Men*), which, when properly used, kills the animal instantly. However, Jewish and Muslim communities do not consider this method to comply with their religious dietary laws, which mandate that cattle be slaughtered with a single, swift cut to the throat that severs the jugular veins and carotid arteries, while keeping the spinal cord intact. Minimizing suffering is a key objective of this ritual slaughter, although it is not always done correctly. For instance, earlier this year, the Australian government faced pressure to halt live cattle exports to Indonesia after videos emerged showing inhumane slaughter practices.
8. Veal
Some people have ethical concerns about eating baby animals, but veal is simply a byproduct of dairy farming: in order to produce milk, cows must give birth. Given the global demand for milk, cows end up having more calves than we can care for as fully grown cattle.
If you follow a vegetarian diet for ethical reasons but still consume dairy from factory farming, you may unintentionally be supporting the veal industry—especially if you consume cheese, which requires not only milk but also rennet extracted from a calf’s stomach.
Some people view it as cruel to deprive a veal calf of both its mother’s milk (so we can drink it) and solid feed (to keep its flesh pale). Instead, these calves are fed a whey formula from birth. Opting for free-raised veal, where a calf has unrestricted access to its mother's milk and pasture, is likely the most ethical option while still consuming beef (see also #1).
7. Hormones and Antibiotics
In North America, farmers are allowed to administer hormones to cattle to promote growth and productivity, though synthetic hormones are prohibited in Canada. In Europe, growth-promoting hormones are entirely banned. A major concern is that humans may ingest these hormones by consuming beef or dairy, potentially leading to health risks such as cancer. Additionally, these hormones could leach into the environment through cattle waste, possibly causing harm to wildlife.
The North American cattle industry defends its position by referencing studies that show hormonal growth promoters pose no risk to human health, arguing that eliminating their use would significantly raise beef prices for consumers.
A related issue is the use of antibiotics, which critics associate with factory farming. Antibiotics are often necessary when animals are confined in tight spaces and share the same feed. When animals have access to pasture, the spread of disease is greatly reduced. The primary concern is not when antibiotics are given to sick animals, but the routine use of antibiotics as a preventive measure, which some believe contributes to global antibiotic resistance.
6. Raw Milk vs. Pasteurized
Anyone raised on a dairy farm will tell you that milk tastes best straight from the cow. Raw milk enthusiasts agree and are advocating for governments to lift bans on the sale of unpasteurized milk, which is illegal in many places. They argue that pasteurization alters the nutrient composition of milk, destroying beneficial bacteria, enzymes, and its antimicrobial properties, as well as diminishing its natural sweetness. Many raw milk supporters believe pasteurization is only necessary due to factory farming, where milk from numerous animals, some possibly sick, is mixed together in one large vat, inevitably leading to contamination. They maintain that if a cow is healthy, has access to pasture, and produces milk free of blood or coagulation, the milk is perfectly safe to drink.
Supporters of pasteurization would counter this by citing the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which reports that raw milk is responsible for three times as many hospitalizations compared to other food-borne illnesses. Milk can become contaminated at any stage from milking to consumption, including during transport and bottling, and may carry pathogens such as E. coli, salmonella, or listeria. In Canada, selling raw milk and raw milk products (with the exception of aged cheese) remains illegal.
Some raw milk enthusiasts have found ways around legal restrictions by engaging in cow-sharing agreements – where owners are allowed to legally drink raw milk from their own cows. Additionally, 28 U.S. states, including California, Washington, and Maine, now permit the sale of inspected and certified raw milk in grocery stores.
5. Grass-fed vs. Grain-fed
One of the main reasons ruminants like cattle, sheep, and goats have historically been so valuable to humans is their ability to convert something we can’t digest (the cellulose in grass) into something we can use (milk or beef). As a result, supporters of grass-fed cattle argue that feeding them grain, something we can already easily digest, is a waste of food.
Grass-fed cattle are less productive compared to their grain-fed counterparts. The latter tend to have a higher fat content and better marbling, making their beef more desirable and easier to market.
Once again, this debate revolves around industrial farming. Grass-fed cattle are typically given access to pasture, which demands more land and labor, whereas grain-fed cattle are generally confined to large factory farms. Opponents of grain-feeding argue that cattle’s natural diet consists of grass, not grains, and that their digestive systems are not designed to process grains, leading to illnesses that require antibiotics (see #7).
4. Grazing Practices
The issue of grazing is closely linked to the grass-fed versus grain-fed debate. The majority of deforestation in the Amazon has been caused by subsistence cattle ranchers clearing land for grazing. They burn parts of the rainforest, plant crops for cattle, only for the cattle to exhaust the food supply and nutrients in that area, which leads to a recurring cycle. Native grasslands in North America have also been depleted due to the constant trampling by grazing cattle.
While confining cows and feeding them grain may help preserve landscapes and produce more desirable beef, is it possible to combine grazing with plant growth? Zimbabwean farmer and biologist Allan Savory believes it is. He observed that wild grazing animals form tight groups for protection against predators. They fertilize small patches with their dung and then move on, allowing the area to regenerate. By mimicking this pattern (rather than allowing cattle to spread out widely), Savory's approach, called 'holistic management,' can encourage the growth of native plants, resulting in increased biodiversity and sustainability.
3. Climate Change
It’s undeniable that burning fossil fuels contributes to the emission of greenhouse gases, but some climate experts argue that livestock should also be considered a major factor in climate change. Cattle, like all ruminants, release methane, a greenhouse gas that is more than twenty times stronger than carbon dioxide. In addition, cattle ranching in many parts of the world leads to deforestation (see #4), destroying one of nature's most efficient carbon sinks.
From a climate-change standpoint, consuming veal is slightly less harmful than eating full-grown cattle, as calves do not digest cellulose and thus produce less methane. However, beef generally has a carbon footprint twice that of pork. Eating cheese is equally detrimental to the environment, according to Mike Berners-Lee’s *How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything*, since a large amount of milk is needed to make a small quantity of cheese. To reduce the climate impact of cheese, Berners-Lee suggests choosing soft cheeses, which require less milk than hard cheeses, and avoiding waste by not discarding cheese just because it has mold on it.
The most climate-conscious choice would be to eliminate beef (and goat and lamb) from our diets entirely. However, with the rise of developing economies around the world, global meat consumption is expected to keep increasing.
2. Breeding and Cloning
In 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration published a risk-assessment study that concluded cloned animals are as safe for the food supply as naturally bred animals. Proponents of cloning argue that it is simply a modern extension of traditional cattle husbandry techniques, such as selective breeding and artificial insemination. If you have an animal with outstanding traits like disease resistance or high milk production, why not replicate those traits with genetically identical copies instead of relying on natural reproduction?
Critics argue that cloning is highly unnatural. When the first cloning experiments were conducted in the 1980s, the results were unpredictable, with many animals being born disabled or ill. Although cloning methods have become more reliable, the risk of deformities persists. Furthermore, cloning raises ethical concerns, particularly around the idea of extending the practice to humans. Additionally, cloning creates genetically identical populations, making them highly vulnerable to diseases that could wipe out the entire herd. Some critics also find it troubling that cloned beef does not require special labeling, meaning the long-term effects of consuming cloned beef might not be apparent for many years.
1. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
BSE, commonly known as mad cow disease, is a brain disorder caused by a prion, a pathogenic protein. As the infection progresses, it creates holes in the animal's brain, leading to issues with coordination, aggression, and ultimately, death. Most scientists believe the disease originated when cattle – herbivores by nature – were fed meat and bone meal, a protein supplement derived from dead cattle. The meal could have been contaminated with the prion responsible for scrapie, a similar disease in sheep, during slaughterhouse or processing operations.
BSE has been connected to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) in humans, a devastating neurological condition that begins with symptoms such as dementia, memory loss, personality changes, and hallucinations. As the disease advances, it leads to a loss of balance and coordination, ultimately causing death. Typically, patients diagnosed with vCJD live only a few months after onset.
Many find the practice of feeding cattle to be vegetarians troubling, but the fact that they were being fed dead cattle made the situation even more alarming, as humans were essentially forcing them into cannibalism. Following the BSE and vCJD outbreaks in the mid-1990s, a decade-long ban on beef exports from Britain was imposed, and significant regulatory changes were made to cattle feed. Despite these changes, cattle are still fed animal-derived feed, although it no longer contains the remains of other ruminants. Given the long incubation period of vCJD, which can last years or even decades, the sufficiency of these measures is still under debate.
