Horn Talk Blog

Animal activists have released another undercover video showing what they claim are abusive practices at a New York dairy operation. The two-minute video released last month shows workers herding animals with poles and electric prods, inseminating cows, tail-docking and includes a close-up photograph of a cow’s prolapsed uterus (a common, easily treated condition following calving). The video also shows a worker disbudding young calves with an electric dehorner; the group’s website claims workers “lop[ped] off” the horns of older calves, although there is no video shown to support this.

This organization is now urging the public to email one of the dairy’s customers, a cooperative supplier, and request the company adopt the group’s own “reasonable” animal welfare guidelines. These guidelines call for the elimination of a number of industry and management practices, including dehorning.

The dairy in question has been welfare-certified by the New York State Cattle Health Assurance Program (NYSCHA) (a process in which every animal on the farm is examined by a veterinarian), and we will not debate its welfare practices here. What we find distasteful is this activist group’s purported interest in advancing farm animal welfare when its real agenda is promoting a vegan diet. Sensationalist undercover videos are less about improving the ways animals are cared for than about supporting legislation that will eventually drive food animal production overseas.

 What’s more, proposing a total ban on basic management procedures like dehorning is both unrealistic and unsafe. Animal with horns present a very real threat to humans, other cows, dogs and horses. The American Veterinary Medical Association knows this, and has long endorsed the practice of dehorning, provided steps are taken to minimize pain and distress.

Animal activist groups might better advance their objectives to “improve the lives of cows and calves on dairy farms” by meeting farmers halfway, i.e., encouraging the adoption of early-age disbudding with caustic paste. This practice has been shown in studies to cause significantly less pain than dehorning with a hot-iron, and helps improve the safety of both humans and animals.

Julie Berry is a freelance science writer.

Another animal rights activist undercover video of a NY farm was released last week that targeted dehorning and other common animal care practices.

Animal rights activists continue to use these videos as a tactic to support legislation that guides how animals are cared for. While this legislation to general consumers can appear well-meaning, it is often not based on science, and can threaten to drive food production overseas.

However, farmers need to take seriously concerns of consumers about how animals are treated on farms, keep current on research and best management practices, and tell their farm family story effectively.

One area of growing research is use of pain management with practices such as dehorning and castration. A recent article published in the Journal of Animal Science showed that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) protocols used in calves at castration can increase average daily gain and reduce susceptibility to disease.

Castration improves meat quality and reduces animal injuries at the feedlot. No compounds are currently approved for pain relief in cattle and available products may not be practical or cost-effective.

“Identification of analgesic compounds that may also have performance benefits after castration would provide livestock producers with an efficient and economically viable way to address animal health and welfare concerns,” wrote the study authors.

The study “Effect of oral meloxicam on health and performance of beef steers relative to bulls castrated on arrival at the feedlot” compared the effect of the NSAID meloxicam on health and performance of calves received as steers versus bull calves castrated surgically on arrival at the feedlot.  In castrated calves meloxicam reduced the pen-level first pull rate and reduced bovine respiratory disease. Meloxicam administration via an oral dose mixed in 50 mL of water before castration in post-weaning calves reduced the incidence of respiratory disease at the feedlot. Meloxicam mitigates pain associated with inflammation after castration.

“These findings suggest that meloxicam administration before castration in post-weaning calves may decrease the number of castrated calves requiring antimicrobial therapy for pneumonia and lessen the economic impact of BRD in livestock production systems. These results have implications for developing pain mitigation strategies involving NSAID in calves at castration with respect to addressing both animal health and welfare concerns,” wrote the study authors.

“Meloxicam administered to cattle by any route constitutes extra-drug label use because currently no analgesic drugs are specifically approved to provide pain relief in livestock in the United States. Under the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act, extra-label drug use is permitted under veterinary supervision for relief of suffering in cattle provided specific conditions are met. Meloxicam injection (20 mg/mL) is approved for use in cattle in the European Union with a 15 day meat withdrawal and in Canada with a 20 day meat withdrawal time after administration of 0.5 mg/kg IV or SC.”

For the first time, dehorning is included among animal welfare standards published by the Dairy Calf and Heifer Association (DCHA) which represents more than 600 heifer growers in the United States.

The DCHA introduced its “Gold Standards III” at last fall’s American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) conference in St. Louis. Developed by a committee of heifer growers, veterinarians and industry representatives, the guidelines include updated recommendations for calf housing, handling, transportation, elective medical care and other practices with an emphasis on animal welfare. They were reviewed by the Animal Welfare Committee of the AABP and a panel of university experts.

On the subject of dehorning, the Standards specify disbudding as the “preferred” method for horn removal, recommending “cautery” at less than one month of age with local anesthesia. Dehorning at least than three months of age is also acceptable with local anesthesia and sedation. You can read the complete Gold Standards III here.

 Gold III also supports the “Five Freedoms” developed in the United Kingdom by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, now the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, one of which is freedom from pain. Of the two “cautery” methods, disbudding with caustic paste has been shown to be less painful than hot-iron dehorning, even when a local anesthetic is used.

For its next incarnation of guidelines, perhaps the DCHA will specify caustic paste disbudding for horn removal that has “the animals’ best welfare interests in mind”, according to DCHA board member and Gold Standards III committee chair Vance Kells.

What do you think of the DCHA’s Gold Standards III?

Sources:

Dairy Calf and Heifer Association, http://www.calfandheifer.org/

Jim Dickrell. “Gold Standards III: Heifer growers set welfare guidelines.” Dairy Today, Nov. 1, 2011. http://www.agweb.com/article/gold_standard_iii/

Vickers, K.J. et al. Calf Response to Caustic Paste and Hot-Iron Dehorning Using Sedation With and Without Local Anesthetic. April 2005. J. Dairy Sci. 88:1454-1459.

Two relatively recent studies expose some striking similarities and differences between Americans and Europeans when it comes to food traceability. Clearly, consumers on both sides of the Atlantic take food safety and animal welfare seriously. One group, however, is much more willing to pay more for “traceability assurances”, while the other tends to take such assurances for granted. But this might not be the case for long.

Researchers from the University of Naples and the University of Massachusetts analyzed the results of several studies evaluating the willingness of European consumers to pay more for various food attributes. They found that Europeans were willing to pay 22 percent more, on average, for “food safety”, 17 percent more for “on-farm traceability” and 14 percent more for “animal welfare.” The authors hypothesized that Europeans are willing to pay more for meat-traceable attributes than North Americans, and cited the recent European trend of banning products containing growth hormones and genetically modified organisms.

Meanwhile, in the United States, Merck Animal Health funded a study of consumer attitudes toward beef. It showed that while Americans were not overly influenced by negative media coverage of safety, animal welfare or environmental issues related to beef, they do want reassurances that their food is healthy and safe, and that food animals are treated humanely. They generally trust assurances such as government labeling, and say they don’t need details about farm of origin or management practices, but still want” transparency”. Not surprisingly, American consumers react much more favorably to terms like “family farm” and “traditional beef” than to terms like “factory farm.”

Based on these studies, researchers recommend the beef industry align with consumer values by emphasizing “traditional” beef, with its legacy of assured safety and quality, produced by hard-working farm families. They also call for greater transparency in the production process, which undoubtedly includes management practices such as dehorning. From a welfare perspective, early-age disbudding with caustic paste is clearly the least invasive, least painful and most humane method of horn removal.

The United States appears to be slowly aligning with European consumers who are not only demanding more transparency in the food animal system, but are increasingly willing to pay for it. Studies like these illustrate the growing need for beef and dairy producers to live up to consumer expectations of quality and safety while reassuring them these expectations are met in a humane manner.