The Welfare of Cattle: Review of Recent Literature

or Summary of Interesting Publications Arave,C.W. and Albright,J.L. 1998. Animal welfare issues: dairy. Animal Welfare InformationCentre Newsletter 9: 3-10. This review article examines current practices in the dairy industry from an animal welfare perspective. Itidentifies many of the welfare issues that the industry needs to address, including concerns expressed byanimal rights activists. Issues raised include:Reduction in the quality and quantity of individual attention.Transportation of injured and sick animals to slaughter.Dehorning, castration and identification.Prolonged stanchion tying of cows, especially without exercise.Tail docking.Pasturing.Separation of cow and calf.Treatment of bull calves, including transportation.Housing.Failure to use welfare-related research knowledge.Production-related susceptibility to disease and metabolic disorders. Of particular concern to animal rights proponents were: Early separation of cow and calf.Cows being almost continually pregnant. Reduced lifespan of cows compared with their natural longevity.Use of drugs to maintain health and antibiotics in feeds.Family farms being forced out of business.Harmful new or prospective technology.Environmental issues. Grandin,T. 1998. The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfareduring cattle slaughter. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 56:121-128. The author suggests that simple counts of the number of cattle that vocalize during slaughtercould provide a practical indicator of their welfare for use in commercial conditions.Observations were made in 6 U.S. slaughter plants, with line speeds varying between 50 and100 animals per hour. At each plant 100-250 cattle were observed from the handler's catwalk asthey were moved through forcing pen, leadup race and into the stunning box. Each animal wasclassified as either a vocalizer or a nonvocalizer. There was considerable variation betweenplants in the proportion of cattle that vocalized, ranging form 1.1% to 32%. In the 4 plants withthe lowest proportion of vocalizers, employers moved cattle quietly in small groups and onlyused electric prods on animals that refused to move. At the two plants with the highestproportion of vocalizers, 90% and 76% respectively of the cattle vocalized. At these last twoplants, the proportions of vocalizers were reduced from 32% to 13% and from 12% to 3% whenemployees were instructed to tap an animal on the rear before resorting to electric prodding. Nearly all (98.2%) of the cattle that vocalized did so immediately after an observed aversiveevent, including slipping, being pressed too tightly in a restraining device or missed captive boltstuns. Electric prod use was associated with 64% of the vocalizations. By reducing theincidence of unnecessary electric prod use it was possible to substantially reduce vocalizationswithout slowing down plant operations. Schwartzkopf-Genswein,K.S. and Stookey,J.M. 1997. The use of infrared thermography toassess inflammation associated with hot-iron and freeze branding in cattle. CanadianJournal of Animal Science 77:577-583. Studies have shown that both hot-iron and freeze branding cause pain in the first 3 hours after branding.The objective of this study was to determine the extent and duration of inflammation following either typeof branding, and possibly determine which causes least discomfort. Thirty yearling crossbred beef heiferswere assigned either to hot-iron (H) or freeze branding (F) treatment groups (15 per treatment). The daybefore branding two patches on the right thigh of each animal were shaved. One patch was to be the brandsite and the other was a reference or control area. The animals entered the facility for branding in arandom order and were given their preassigned treatments. Hot-iron branding was performed using anelectric branding iron in the shape of the University's registered brand, heated for 10 min and applied tothe skin for 3 to 5 seconds. Freeze branding was done with a single copper iron of the same size and shapeas for hot-iron branding, immersed and maintained in liquid nitrogen before and between treatments. Thesite for freeze branding was saturated with methyl hydrate and the iron immediately applied and held for25 seconds. Repeated images of the brand sites and reference patches were made using an infraredthermographic camera. This records surface skin temperatures as a variable colour image to an accuracywithin 0.1?C. Thermograhic pictures were taken 5 min before branding, immediately after branding, 5min after branding and at increasing intervals thereafter up to 168 hours (1 week) after branding. Both H and F brand sites were warmer than their own reference patches between 2 and 168 hours afterbranding. Freeze brand sites were warmer 2 and 8 hours after branding and H sites were warmer 144hours after branding. The thermographic studies showed that both methods of branding caused tissuedamage. Hot iron brand sites were warmer than F sites at 168 hours after branding. The longer duration ofthis inflammatory response suggests that hot-iron branding causes more tissue damage and perhapsgreater discomfort than freeze branding. Stark,D.A. 1995. A review of the veterinarian's role in the handling of down/disabled cattle. TheBovine Practitioner 29:125-127. The author notes that a down cow has to be one of the most depressing sights facing aproducer and veterinarian. The public is concerned that these animals are cared for properlyand that the welfare of the animal is not forsaken for economic gain. The veterinarian hasimportant roles to play in preventing, treating and disposing of such animals. . The AmericanAssociation of Bovine Practitioners states that veterinarians have three key responsibilities inthe care of downer cattle. They are: 1) To help prevent conditions leading to ambulatory problems. Cattle go down for many reasons including septicemia, toxemia, fractures or other injuries,nutritional and metabolic disturbances and others. Recommendations that promote good herdhealth will help to prevent conditions which can lead to ambulatory problems. Good nutrition,footing and hoof care and early treatment of hypocalcemia are important. 2) To provide an early and accurate prognosis. The prospects of recovery for a down animal can be difficult to predict, even after thoroughveterinary examination and diagnosis of any disease condition. One study showed that half ofall downer cows rise within four days of going down. The prognosis was poor after seven days.An important factor is the willingness of the owner to provide good nursing care. If such care isnot provided, the chances of success are poor. 3) To recommend appropriate disposition alternatives. Producers indicate that they would value veterinary input into decisions about whether todestroy or salvage a downer animal. But the veterinarian is often not present when the decisionmust be made. Discussing disposal options during routine visits could help to equip owners withuseful criteria to use when necessary. An animal should only be sent for salvage when: the animal is known to be free of conditions and animal health products that would make it unfitfor human consumption.the animal can be humanely loaded and transported.the animal can be stunned prior to unloading. Otherwise the animal should be humanely euthanized.