Dr Michael Morris - Animal welfare writer Dr Michael Morris has a PhD in zoology from the University of Auckland. He is presently teaching degree courses in environmental management at the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic.

There has (rightly) been a great deal of concern over the environmental effects that large numbers of cows will have on the fragile environment of the MacKenzie country. Less emphasis has been placed on the animal welfare implications, which are also horrendous.

Even now, commercial dairy farming is a far cry from the idyllic pastoral scenes depicted in 'Tess of the d'Urbervilles”, where every cow was known by name and personal temperament. Modern commercial dairy farming depends on separating the calf from his or her mother at birth, resulting in a great deal of stress for mother and child. In addition, continuous pressure for higher production leads to a number of painful conditions, including mastitis and lameness in dairy cattle. Painful mutilations, including tail docking, dehorning and castration are also common.

Overseas studies have shown that keeping cows in cubicles will exacerbate many of these conditions. When cows are standing for long periods on overcrowded and unhygienic hard concrete pads, lameness and mastitis both increase.

Keeping cows inside will also allow them to be fed high protein feed instead of grass to improve their milk yield. The resource consents for the MacKenzie country mentions the use of 'imported supplement” as feed. Further increasing milk yield on an animal already producing far more than their bodies can cope with, will lead to more metabolic diseases and increased mortality.

It has been argued that animal welfare is not an 'effect” under the Resource Management Act (RMA) and therefore cannot be taken into account when making the decision on whether the cubicles can be allowed. However, there are several reasons why animal welfare should be considered.

Firstly, part of the RMA definition of 'environment” includes the 'social, economic, aesthetic and cultural conditions”. Public repugnance to animal cruelty must surely count as a 'social” or 'cultural” condition. Secondly, the RMA requires consent holders to 'have regard to” the ethic of stewardship. This must include keeping animals in decent conditions. Lastly, resource consents are decided on the basis of a cost benefit analysis. It is therefore important that all costs are taken into account, including costs to the animals, and to public sensibilities. This is especially so in the case of the proposed cow cubicles, where the consent process has been 'called in”, and therefore considered to be of national significance.