Nose-Flap Devices Used for Two-Stage Weaning Produce Wounds in the Nostrils of Beef Calves: Case Report

Abstract

This case report aims to describe the occurrence of negative impacts of wearing nose-flap devices on beef calves subjected to the two-stage weaning method. Forty-one calves, twenty-one pure Nellore and twenty F1 Angus-Nellore, were weaned on average at 236 days of age. Commercial nose-flap devices were fitted in the nostrils of the calves (d0) to prevent suckling and removed five days later (d5). Individual body weights were assessed at d0 and d5, and average daily gain (ADG) was calculated. At d5, during nose-flap device removal, it was noted that 26.8% of the calves lost the nose-flap device; however, all of them had wounds in their nostrils (no injuries in the nostrils had been observed on d0). To assess the severity of these injuries, an impairment score was assigned to each calf, ranging from 1 = no lesions to 5 = injured with purulent discharge. A logistic regression model was fitted to evaluate the effect of sex and genetic group on nose-flap retention (kept or lost). The retention rate did not differ (p > 0.05) between sex and genetic groups. All calves showed at least open wounds of the nasal septum (score 2), including those that lost the nose-flaps before d5. Almost half of the calves showed weight loss during this period. We conclude that there is a considerable risk of the two-stage weaning method compromising the physical integrity of the nostrils of beef calves through the use of these devices, and due to this, it should not be referred to as a low-stress weaning practice for beef calves.

Development and application of a scoring system for septum injuries in beef calves with and without a nose flap

“…The closest information in terms of the functional aspects of attachment to the nasal septum is how many flaps were lost before removal. While Haley et al (2005) and Taylor et al (2020) both reported less than 5% flap loss, others have reported 24% ( Lambertz et al, 2015 ) or even 27% ( Valente et al, 2022 ) loss of the flap before calves had them manually removed. At the time of the current study, nose flap loss has not been evaluated in relationship to calf size or nostril septum width measurement.…”

“…When compared to abrupt weaning, calf weight gain was not affected by the nose flap ( Burke et al, 2009 ; Lambertz et al, 2015 ; Alvez et al, 2016 ). Some researchers have reported that calves had a decrease in daily weight gain when the nose flap was in place, but similar overall gains compared to abruptly weaned calves ( Haley et al, 2005 ; Burke et al, 2009 ; Valente et al, 2022 ). Plasma cortisol concentrations remained in normal range 0.3 μg/dL ( Hopster et al, 1999 ) to 5.5 μg/dL ( Doornenbal et al, 1988 ) for calves that were weaned with a nose flap ( Freeman et al, 2021 ) suggesting that this method did not cause additional stress to the calves.…”

“…Although weaning with a nose flap is generally seen as having net gains for animal welfare, there have been concerns about injuries inflicted on the nasal septum during the process. Modest to moderate nasal injuries ( Lambertz et al, 2015 ; Taylor et al, 2020 ), hemorrhage, ulceration, erosions ( Taylor et al, 2020 ), abrasions ( Lambertz et al, 2015 ), lesions ( Freeman et al, 2021 ), or open wounds ( Valente et al, 2022 ) have been observed at the time of flap removal. Although uncommon, more serious, or life-threatening abscesses ( Fernandes et al, 2000 ; Loretti et al, 2003 ) have also been reportedly caused by wearing of plastic nose flaps.…”

“…To date, nose flap induced injuries have only been characterized in two studies. Lambertz et al (2015) and Valente et al (2022) both developed scoring systems that assigned a score or grade to the injury to classify its severity. Lambertz et al (2015) evaluated nasal abrasions associated with the use of plastic and metal nose flaps held in place for 7 d and observed nasal abrasions in over 95% of calves at flap removal.…”

“…Of these animals, 27% had slight irritation, 58% of those had slight or heavy bleeding, about 7% had pus, and 4% had deep purulent wounds ( Lambertz et al, 2015 ). Similarly, Valente et al (2022) identified presence of injury and different types of secretion; including blood, and translucent or purulent secretion, and found that all calves (41 of 41) all fell into one of the ‘injured with or without secretion’ categories at flap removal. Both studies had mutually exclusive descriptions for wounds, scored live, and did not have controls where calves were kept in the same environmental conditions to ensure that injuries were solely caused by the nose flap.…”