Page 283 - The Welfare of Cattle

260 the WeLfare of CattLe

Disbudding/dehorning. Dairy farms commonly remove a calf’s horns, most often through appli-
cation of a hot-iron or caustic paste (to disbud) or via surgical means (dehorning), in order to prevent
horn growth and avoid injury for both cattle and handlers (AVMA, 2012). Though earlier interven-
tion is considered less invasive and hence less painful (AVMA, 2012), all of these procedures result
in varying levels of acute and chronic pain and distress for the animals involved, particularly when
performed without analgesia or anesthesia (Heinrich et al., 2010; Stafford and Mellor, 2011).
The proportion of American farms reporting use of pain control for disbudding or dehorning,
however, is generally low (<18%, Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Fulwider et al., 2008). Research in the early
2000s indicated that livestock farmers may ascribe lower concern to pain arising from short-term
procedures compared to other stakeholders (Vanhonacker et al., 2008; Phillips et al., 2009; Spooner
et al., 2012) perhaps partly due to the perception of the necessity of such procedures in mitigating
other management problems (Kjaernes et al., 2007; Spooner et al., 2012).
However, the lack of pain control for disbudding and dehorning stands in stark opposition to
values even among stakeholders within the dairy industry (Robbins et al., 2015; Ventura et al., 2015)
and certainly contrasts with broader societal imperatives that farm animals not be subjected to
unnecessary pain (Rutgers, 2003; Spooner et al., 2014; Robbins et al., 2015). Decades of research
indicate that the pain response to these procedures is greatly attenuated through provision of
comprehensive, multi-modal pain management (McMeekan et al., 1999; Heinrich et al., 2010;
Stilwell et al., 2012; Huber et al., 2013; Coetzee, 2013a; Winder et al., 2017). Furthermore, provision
of analgesia for calves undergoing disbudding or dehorning is beneficial for production parameters
as well as welfare indicators of importance to farmers. For instance, calves disbudded without
analgesia have slower growth rates than do calves receiving pain relief (Bates et al., 2016). It is esti-
mated that lidocaine provision costs under $0.50 per calf (Misch et al., 2007), and comprehensive
management is estimated at less than $4.00 per head, or approximately 0.004% of the total estimated
cost of raising a replacement heifer (Gabler et al., 2000; see Robbins et al., 2015). Thus, increasing
the application of comprehensive pain management may help resolve some social concerns about
pain control while also remaining feasible for farmers.
In keeping with recent research findings, the recently revised animal care standards for the
National Milk Producers Federation (under the Farmers Assuring Responsible Management, or
FARM, program) encourage farmers to develop comprehensive pain management protocols together
with their veterinarians (NMPF, 2016). Others have suggested more long-term solutions to replace
the need for dehorning in the first place, through introduction of polled genetics into dairy herds
(Long and Gregory, 1978; Hoeschele, 1990). Genetic engineering provides a viable means by which
to accomplish horn removal by introducing an allele that knocks out the gene that produces horns
(Carlson et al., 2016) without causing direct negative effects (such as pain). Thus, it warrants greater
consideration for implementation into dairy production and management decision-making. Unlike
other methods of altering cows and calves, genetic alteration does not compromise telos given that
there are naturally occurring alleles for polled cattle. In line with Sandøe et al.’s (2014) premise,
genetically altered calves would have a different telos than horned animals, and consequently, dif-
ferent interests (see Rollin’s [1995] suggestion) that would require attention.
Robbins et al. (2015) note that that use of polled genetics has long been suggested (Long and
Gregory, 1978; Hoeschele, 1990) and has already been adopted by the US beef industry, which
reported that in 2007, over 85% of beef calves were born without horns—an increase of 17% from
1992 (USDA, 2008). As Robbins et al. (2015) conclude, “Given the obvious benefit of this approach
for both dairy producers (i.e., reduced labor and improved public image) and dairy cattle (i.e.,
reduced pain), greater investment of this option seems prudent.” The NMPF animal care standards
now suggest the potential of polled dairy genetics to supplant dehorning (NMPF, 2016).
Tail docking. It is thought that farmers in New Zealand began docking cows’ tails in an effort
to control transmission of leptospirosis, which was believed to be connected with milkers coming
into contact with the pathogen, which can be shed in urine found on cows’ tails (Tucker et al, 2001).