Page 237 - The Welfare of Cattle

214 the WeLfare of CattLe

Disbudding and Dehorning

Disbudding is usually conducted soon after birth when the horn is not yet formed (still in
bud stage) while dehorning is most commonly done after 2–3 months of age when the horn buds
attach to the frontal bone (AVMA, 2014). It is well documented that both procedures cause sig-
nificant stress and pain in cattle regardless of their age (Heinrich et al., 2009; Duffield et al., 2010;
Stilwell et al., 2010). The negative effects of dehorning are so great that they almost always result
in weight loss, especially in older calves (Goonewardene and Hand, 1991). The older the calf and
the larger the horns, the greater the tissue trauma, possibility of complications, and increased wel-
fare concern (Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al., 2012a). Consequently, disbudding is recommended
to be done as early as possible after birth (AVMA, 2014; CVMA, 2016); however, if it is con-
ducted after horn formation (between 2 and 3 months of age) pain control is required in Canada
(NFACC, 2013). A welfare-friendly alternative to physical dehorning/disbudding is the use of
genetically polled (having no horns) sires which produce polled calves eliminating the need to dis-
bud or dehorn (CVMA, 2016). The 1991 National Beef Quality Audit (Lorenzen et al., 1993) and
the 2009 Canadian Beef Quality audit (van Donkersgoed et al., 2001) found that 31.3% and 40%
of cattle, respectively, were observed to have horns at the time of slaughter. However, a recent US
study (Youngers et al., 2017) reported that the percentage of feedlot cattle with horns averaged 7.7%
(ranging between 1% and 26%) indicating that more producers are dehorning on the ranch or that
there is an increased use of polled genetics.

Branding

Branding is still a very common method of animal identification which is used as proof of
animal ownership and its practice has deep historic and cultural roots within the North American
beef industry. In addition, Canadian cattle crossing the US border currently require a brand for
export purposes used to track reportable diseases. Branding is typically done at the same time as
some other routine management procedures such as castration and dehorning or weaning. Branding
remains relevant for producers as surprisingly, cattle rustling continues to be an issue in beef pro-
duction, particularly on the ranch as cattle graze on large tracts of land that are not highly moni-
tored. A recent interview with a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer indicated the
number of missing cattle rose by 5% between 2015 and 2016 in Alberta and by 40% between 2013
and 2014 in Saskatchewan which he attributed to the high value of cows and calves (between $1,500
and $2,000) (Graveland, 2016).
Both hot-iron and freeze branding are well known to cause pain and distress (Schwartzkopf-
Genswein et al., 1997a, b, c; 1998; Watts and Stookey, 1999). Hot-iron branding has been shown
to produce more acute pain than freeze branding (Schwartzkopf-Genswein and Stookey, 1997;
Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al., 1997a, b, c; 1998), and an inflammatory response (as measured via
infrared thermography) was observed for up to 6 days post freeze branding and up to 7 days post hot-
iron but most likely persists much longer because the temperature at the hot-brand site was still signifi-
cantly greater than the control site at that time (Schwartzkopf-Genswein and Stookey, 1997). Hot-iron
branding is commonly used in feedlot cattle while freeze branding is used more in purebred cattle.
There is currently a lack of research on pain mitigation for either branding method with the exception of
one study assessing the anti-inflammatory effects of aloe vera gel applied onto the brand immediately
after hot-iron branding. The study found no improvements in brand healing in cattle receiving the gel
compared to those who did not (Tucker et al., 2014). There are other more welfare conscious methods
of identification including ear tags, and or radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags. Unfortunately,
these are not considered permanent methods since tags can be removed or inadvertently torn off which
ultimately reduces their use as the sole method of identification, especially in range cattle. Another
alternative is retinal identification, using the unchanging vascular patterns on the retina.