Behavioural responses of lambs of three ages in the first three hours after three methods of castration and tail docking

103

One important objective for animal welfare is to maintain animals free from pain, injury or disease. Therefore, detecting and evaluating the intensity of animal pain is crucial. As animals cannot directly communicate their feelings, it is necessary to identify sensitive and specific indicators that can be easily used. The aim of the present paper is to review relevant indicators to assess pain in several farm species. The term pain is used for mammals, birds and fish, even though the abilities of the various species to experience the emotional component of pain may be different. Numerous behavioural changes are associated with pain and many of them could be used on farms to assess the degree of pain being experienced by an animal. Pain, as a stressor, is associated with variations in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis as well as in the sympathetic and immune systems that can be used to identify the presence of pain rapidly after it started. However, most of these measures need sophisticated equipment for their assessment. Therefore, they are mainly adapted to experimental situations. Injuries and other lesional indicators give information on the sources of pain and are convenient to use in all types of situations. Histopathological analyses can identify sources of pain in experimental studies. When pronounced and/or long lasting, the pain-induced behavioural and physiological changes can decrease production performance. Some indicators are very specific and sensitive to pain, whereas others are more generally related to stressful situations. The latter can be used to indicate that animals are suffering from something, which may be pain. Overall, this literature review shows that several indicators exist to assess pain in mammals, a few in birds and very few in fish. Even if in some cases, a single indicator, usually a behavioural indicator, may be sufficient to detect pain, combining various types of indicators increases sensitivity and specificity of pain assessment. Research is needed to build and validate new indicators and to develop systems of pain assessment adapted to each type of situation and each species.

Section: Postural and Behavioural Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Postural and Behavioural Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Postural and Behavioural Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identifying and monitoring pain in farm animals: a review

Prunier

Mounier

Neindre³

et al. 2013

103

“…Methods of physical castration involve surgical removal of the testes, or damaging the testicles by interruption of its blood supply using a castration clamp (Burdizzo castration), rubber ring or latex band (Kent et al, 1996). For all techniques and at all ages, castration is believed to be painful (Molony et al, 1993;Robertson et al, 1994) with acute (Stafford et al, 2002;Ting et al, 2004), as well as longer-lasting components (Ting et al, 2003a and2003b;Thuer et al, 2007). The castration clamp method (Burdizzo) appears to induce the least acute and longerlasting pain responses in calves (Stafford et al, 2002) and is recommended for use, although producers sometimes refuse to use it because of the higher probability of failure.…”

Section: Substitute the Painful Procedures By The Least Painful Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimising pain in farm animals: the 3S approach – ‘Suppress, Substitute, Soothe’

Guatteo

Levionnois

Fournier

et al. 2012

Recently, the French National Institute for Agricultural Research appointed an expert committee to review the issue of pain in food-producing farm animals. To minimise pain, the authors developed a ‘3S’ approach accounting for ‘Suppress, Substitute and Soothe’ by analogy with the ‘3Rs’ approach of ‘Reduction, Refinement and Replacement’ applied in the context of animal experimentation. Thus, when addressing the matter of pain, the following steps and solutions could be assessed, in the light of their feasibility (technical constraints, logistics and regulations), acceptability (societal and financial aspects) and availability. The first solution is tosuppressany source of pain that brings no obvious advantage to the animals or the producers, as well as sources of pain for which potential benefits are largely exceeded by the negative effects. For instance, tail docking of cattle has recently been eliminated. Genetic selection on the basis of resistance criteria (as e.g. for lameness in cattle and poultry) or reduction of undesirable traits (e.g. boar taint in pigs) may also reduce painful conditions or procedures. The second solution is tosubstitutea technique causing pain by another less-painful method. For example, if dehorning cattle is unavoidable, it is preferable to perform it at a very young age, cauterising the horn bud. Animal management and constraint systems should be designed to reduce the risk for injury and bruising. Lastly, in situations where pain is known to be present, because of animal management procedures such as dehorning or castration, or because of pathology, for example lameness, systemic or local pharmacological treatments should be used tosoothepain. These treatments should take into account the duration of pain, which, in the case of some management procedures or diseases, may persist for longer periods. The administration of pain medication may require the intervention of veterinarians, but exemptions exist where breeders are allowed to use local anaesthesia (e.g. castration and dehorning in Switzerland). Extension of such exemptions, national or European legislation on pain management, or the introduction of animal welfare codes by retailers into their meat products may help further developments. In addition, veterinarians and farmers should be given the necessary tools and information to take into account animal pain in their management decisions.

“…However, studies focussing on other mammals showed the painful character of amputations performed without anaesthesia. For instance, docking has been shown to be painful in dogs (review in Bennett and Perini (2003); http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/domestic/awbill consulttaildocking.pdf), sheep (Molony et al, 1993;Graham et al, 1997;Kent et al, 1998) and cattle (review in Stull et al, 2002;Aubry, 2005). Both castration and docking of piglets have also been shown to induce specific behavioural changes, such as vocalisations (Noonan et al, 1994;Weary et al, 1998;Marx et al, 2003;Puppe et al, 2005), activity disturbances and abnormal movements of the mutilated areas Hay et al, 2003).…”

Section: Cosmetic Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tail docking in horses: a review of the issues

Lefebvre¹,

Lips

Ödberg

et al. 2007

Routinely performed painful procedures are of increasing interest and, in 2001 (Royal Order, May 17), Belgium prohibited docking in several vertebrates including horses. In 2004, opponents to this decision submitted a Bill (Doc51 0969/001) to Parliament, intending to obtain derogation for Belgian draught horses, which were traditionally docked. The Animal Welfare Council of Belgium, an official body advising the Minister of Public Health, was asked to evaluate this complex question, including biological, ethical and socio-economic aspects, on the basis of the available peer-reviewed studies. In this context, this study reviews legal aspects (overview of the European legislation), zootechnic aspects (uses of the Belgian draught horse) and biological aspects (pain potentially related to docking; horses’ welfare linked to insect harassment and hygiene, communication and reproduction) of tail docking in draught horses. We conclude that (1) there is no benefit for horses in tail docking, including Belgian draught horses, (2) potential advantages of docking are essentially in favour of humans and these advantages could be scrupulously re-evaluated, taking into account practices of other countries. Therefore, there is no need to dock any horse other than for veterinary reasons.