Call 'Em Anything but "Late for Dinner"

From: Pull the udder one? Calling cows names 'makes them produce more milk'
Matthew Weaver
Wednesday January 28 2009
guardian.co.uk

"Cows with names such as Ermintrude and Daisy produce more milk than cattle without names, researchers claimed today.

The study, which has prompted a pull-the-udder-one attitude among sceptics, said cows treated with "the personal touch" are happier, and produce higher milk yields than cows treated as just one of a herd.

Researchers from Newcastle University asked 516 British dairy farmers about their attitude to the behaviour and welfare of their cows. Those who called cows by name said they had a 258-litre higher milk yield than those who did not.

The study was published in an online journal called Anthrozoos, which is described as a "multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals". Critics claimed the study was flawed and confused a correlation with causation.

Dr Catherine Douglas, who conducted the research, said: "By placing more importance on the individual, such as calling a cow by her name or interacting with the animal more as it grows up, we not only improve the animal's welfare and her perception of humans, but also increase milk production."

She added: "Just as people respond better to the personal touch, cows also feel happier and more relaxed if they are given a bit more one-to-one attention. What our study shows is what many good, caring farmers have long since believed."

Dennis Gibb, who co-owns Eachwick Red House Farm at Dalton, near Newcastle upon Tyne, with his brother Richard, says he believes treating every cow as an individual is "vitally important". He said: "Collectively we refer to them as 'our ladies' but we know every one of them and each one has her own personality."

Hank Campbell, who set up the blog Scientific Blogging, said the study had "too many logical flaws for me to tackle without being insulting". He wrote: "Basically they asked farmers how to get more milk and whatever half the farmers said was the conclusion."

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2009."

We found this study interesting for a number of reasons. First, every dairy farmer has an interest in doing whatever is necessary to get the optimum production from his or her cows. This might mean naming them, feeding them treats when they are being milked, waving incense over them or dancing a Seekrit Magical Milk Dance around them. There is already evidence that cows are sensitive animals and there are many studies documenting that stressed animals do not produce as well. The conclusion of the study is not necessarily wrong, it’s simply unsupported in a way that is scientifically defensible.

The first problem here is the assumption that correlation is the same as causation, in other words, the assumption that because two events have a relationship with each other, one must cause the other. For example, Merlin, our rooster, crows in the morning. I get up and go to work in the morning. Most mornings, both are true. I do not get up because Merlin crows, I get up because if I don’t, neither he nor I will have enough to eat, shortly. But someone confusing correlation with causation might assume that I wake up in the morning because Merlin crows, rather than considering other factors, like “dog needing to go out right now,” or "retaining job,” or "Tom booting me out of bed." In the cow study, it is possible that the farmers who named their cows were also more likely to provide a calming milking environment, which could also result in greater yield with or without a name. There are many other factors that might result in greater production.

The second problem is in the model that was used to support the conclusion. The fact that every farmer that names his cows thinks they produce more milk for that reason and will tell you so isn’t proof that they do. Opinions aren’t science. Sometimes, it can be very difficult to conclude, in a scientifically defensible way, things that are fairly obvious.

We can’t swear that our cows like their names well enough to give us more milk (except Priscilla, who picked hers through an animal communicator). But we think the authors of the study are headed in the right direction. We know that cows like to be talked to. We know they are smart and can learn some words, including their names. Happy cows are likely to produce more milk. That’s enough for us to suspect that the authors have a reasonable foundation for asking this question.

Tom looks really silly doing that Seekrit Magical Milk Dance out in the barn and possibly just calling the cows by their names would be more effective. But then again, Tom really likes doing the Seekrit Magical Milk Dance and production may not be the reason he does it at all. It's easy to confuse correlation with causation.