A review of the causes, prevention, and welfare of nonambulatory cattle

Abstract

A major animal welfare issue facing the livestock industry is the care, handling, and transport of nonambulatory cattle. Consumers, researchers, practitioners, and animal protection organizations have questioned the quality of care provided to and management of nonambulatory cattle and raised questions about possible food safety concerns. Veterinarians and producers continue to be challenged with providing quality care for nonambulatory cattle. In addition, veterinarians are recognized as a credible source of information for consumers, regulators, and policy makers. Thus, it would be beneficial to provide peer-reviewed information to practitioners and others who must make clinical and policy decisions. Several sources a-f were searched by use of various key words to identify relevant peer-reviewed citations for the information reported here. In addition, governmental and lay reports were reviewed to ascertain policies, regulations, and historical data concerning nonambulatory cattle. Existing peer-reviewed information was considered adequate by the authors for the development of recommended on-farm management practices that could result in a decrease in the incidence of, an improvement in the prognosis for, and a benefit to the well-being of nonambulatory cattle. Definition of Nonambulatory or Downer Cows Wide variation exists in the case definition and related terms applied to nonambulatory cattle. The colloquial term downer has been used since the 1950s to describe cattle that are too injured, weak, or sick to stand and walk. 1 The term creeper has been used to describe cattle that are unable to use their hind limbs but that could propel themselves short distances with their forelimbs. 2 More recently, the term downer has commonly denoted cattle that are unable to stand after 24 hours of recumbency but that can maintain sternal recumbency. 3 Such cattle are sometimes referred to as alert downers to differentiate them from lethargic or moribund recumbent cattle that are unable to stand. The inclusion criteria A review of the causes, prevention, and welfare of nonambulatory cattle

A review of bovine cases consigned under veterinary certification to emergency and casualty slaughter in Ireland during 2006 to 2008

“…As examples, badly fractured front legs and hind-limb tendon injuries were linked to shear grab accidents, fractured leg to slipping on slats, and neck muscle damage was attributed to a new gate system. White & Moore [33] and Stull et al [27] each mention that improved farm management, including care with farm machinery, would greatly reduce the incidence of ES/CS animals. Injuries involving other body systems were noted.…”

“…Stress during transport can result in latently infected animals shedding large numbers of pathogens [8]. Stull et al [27] found that E. coli 0157:H7 in faecal or tissue samples was 3.3 times greater among downer cows arriving at slaughterhouses compared to normal cattle (an incidence of 4.9% versus 1.5%, respectively). Transportation can also have a deleterious effect on product quality [4].…”

“…White & Moore [33], in their slaughterhouse-based study of cow carcase condemnations, identified animal welfare concerns and potential production losses, and recommended the implementation of prevention practices on farms and feedlot by identifying critical control points. Stull et al [27] recommended on-farm management practices to reduce the incidence of downers. More care is required on farm with the use of machinery and the design and maintenance of slat and cubicle houses, there needs to be earlier veterinary intervention of sick or injured animals, and there is also a need for training of farmers, livestock handling staff and transporters.…”

Euthanasia Techniques for Dairy Cattle

“…The incidence of nonambulatory animals based upon nonfed cattle reports from federally inspected plants during 1994 and 1999 were between 1.1% and 1.5% for nonambulatory dairy cows and 0.7% to 1.1% for nonambulatory beef cattle (Smith et al, 1994(Smith et al, , 1999Stull et al, 2007 ). During 2001, of 7382 nonambulatory fed and nonfed cattle arriving at 19 packing plants in Canada, 90% were dairy cattle (Doonan et al, 2003 ).…”

Assessment of the farm management of culling cattle: a survey of existing practices and suggestions for drafting of best practices

“…When an animal is on the ground, the shorter the period of the decubitus, the greater the chance is that it will be able to move again; the longer the decubitus, the more unfavorable the prognosis (Stull et al ., 2007). …”