CattleAnnie
Well-known member
~Article (Note the amount of damage horned cattle in the feedlot inflict on each other and the cost carcass wise in $ value) ~
Dehorning of Cattle
By Dr. Joseph Stookey, Professor
Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Saskatchewan
In June, 2000 the Expert Committee on Farm Animal
Welfare and Behaviour met in Guelph, Ontario, to set
research priorities and discuss emerging issues. This is
an annual meeting for the Expert Committee and involves
the gathering of scientists, industry representatives,
government officials, Farm Animal Council
representation, veterinarians and representatives from the
humane society and the animal welfare movement.
From a scientist’s perspective it is clear that we do not need
additional scientific studies to resolve some animal welfare
issues. On some issues the scientific information is
already quite clear and it is highly unlikely that new or
additional research would overturn previous finding. A
case in point would be the issue of dehorning cattle.
It appears that there is sufficient evidence (and no contrary
evidence) to make a sound recommendation to the beef
industry regarding dehorning of cattle. The question is
whether the industry will embrace the recommendation.
Below is one of the action statements adopted by the
Expert Committee this past June and the background
information that led to the recommendations. It is the
committee’s hope that the industry would embrace this
action statement. Using Polled Beef Sires to Dehorn
Beef Cattle Action Item: To promote the use of Polled
Sires within the Beef Industry within Canada.
Background:
Horns on beef cattle pose several disadvantages to the
cattle and to the beef industry. Horns are weapons that
are used by cattle in competitive encounters at the feed
bunk, hay bale, shade tree, water trough, over breeding
privileges or dominance and against man in offensive or
protective situations. Leaving horns on beef cattle makes
all of these encounters potentially more dangerous, both
to people and to other cattle.
When horns are left on feedlot cattle, the amount of
bruised trim from the carcasses has been reported to be
twice the amount measured from equivalent hornless
groups (Meischke et al., 1974; Grandin, 1980). Bruised
carcasses devalue the product. The Canadian Beef
Quality Audit has estimated that bruising costs the industry
$10 million a year.
The alternative is to remove the horns of feedlot cattle.
However, cattle dehorned in the feedlot experience a
setback in average daily gain that can be detected up to
106 days post dehorning (Goonewardene and Hand,
1991), evidence of the long term effects from the pain
and suffering that the dehorning procedure inflicts upon
cattle of this age. Dehorning cattle prior to arrival at the
feedlot, say at 3 months of age, does not circumvent the
painful experience (Sylvester et al., 1998). Dehorning
cattle shortly after birth using caustic paste or hot iron
has also been proven to be painful (Morisse et al., 1995).
The use of local anesthetics administered prior to
dehorning in calves has been shown to reduce the
behaviours associated with the immediate pain response
(Morisse et al., 1995; Sylvester et al., 1998), however, it
is not common practice within the beef industry to
administer analgesics prior to dehorning. Even when
local anaesthetics are administered prior to dehorning
their effectiveness in blocking pain is limited to a few
hours post dehorning. Cortisol levels rise after the effect
of the local anaesthetic wears off (Petrie et al., 1996)
evidence that post-operative pain extends beyond the
reach of local anesthetics alone. It is unlikely that the
beef industry would embrace the use of long acting nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs (such as ketoprofen) in
a combination with local anesthetics, which are needed to
control post-operative and immediate pain responses
(McMeekan et al., 1998; 1999), when the common
practice already is not to use local anaesthetics prior to
dehorning.
The logical alternative to dehorning and one that is
welfare and industry friendly is to use polled bulls to sire
calves that do not need dehorning. Horns are inherited as
an autosomal recessive gene, polledness being dominant
(Long and Gregory, 1978). In one breeding season a
producer can take a herd of horned cows and breed them
to a polled bull (homozygous for the polled condition)
and produce an entire calf crop of polled calves.
Historically, horned bulls may have been superior to their
polled counterparts, but today there is no scientific
evidence that polled bulls are inferior. Polled Hereford
and Charolais bulls at test stations have been found to be
no different or superior to their horned counterparts in
average daily gain, adjusted yearly weight, adjusted
scrotal circumference and backfat thickness (Stookey and
Goonewardene, 1996).
Polled German Simmental cattle were no different from their horned counterparts in growth, carcass yield, carcass composition, health and reproductive performance (Lange, 1989). Horned and
polled crossbred lines from various beef breeds were no
different in live weight, fertility and mortality rates
(Frisch et al., 1980). Recent comparisons of three beef
synthetic lines found no differences between horned and
polled cattle in weight at birth, weaning weight, pre- and
post-weaning average daily gain, carcass weight and
carcass characteristics (Goonewardene et al., 1999a) nor
were there differences in reproductive traits such as
pregnancy rates, dystocia scores, cow weights and cow
condition scores (Goonewardene et al., 1999b). To date,
there is no scientific evidence that polled animals are
inferior.
Dehorning beef cattle via genetics using polled
sires is the logical and welfare appropriate practice that
the beef industry should embrace and promote.
Since the Expert Committee met in June, additional
information has been obtained. It already appears that
the trend towards using polled beef bulls may be
increasing, regardless of the welfare issues, due to the
increase in popularity of some of the polled breeds
sought for their calving ease, color or carcass traits.
Exotic beef breeds in North America that were bred up
from foundation stock are reporting a gradual increase
toward the number of polled animals. For example, in
1989 the number of polled Limousins registered by the
Canadian Limousin Association represented only 18% of
the new registrations.
In 1999 the number of Limousins
registered as polled had increased to 49%. The same
trend has occurred in the Simmental breed with 14% of
the registrations in 1989 reported as polled, while 32% of
the animals registered in 1999 were reported to be
naturally polled. The Charolais breed in Canada is
moving, perhaps the fastest of any exotic breeds, towards
the polled animal. The frequency of polled animals
registered between 1988-1990 was already 38% and by
1998-2000 polled Charolais animals represented 65.5%
of the Association’s registrations.
Fortunately, the
presence or absence of horns is not thought to be
representative of superior or inferior animals for many of
the exotic beef breeds, in the sense that breeders or
buyers would avoid buying a polled bull. Instead
selection for polled animals in exotic breeds seems to be
the current trend. It is interesting to note that some
breeders in North America have begun exporting semen
and animals with the polled condition back to the country
where the breed originated and where polled animals are
not readily available.
Horned Hereford breeders seem to be the exception to the
trend and in some ways have used the horns as indicators
or “advertisements” of their tradition and selection for
specific traits. Many horned Hereford breeders would
resist switching to polled bulls simply to address the
issue of dehorning, because at the same time they would
have to give up tradition, possible clientele and years of
selection following specific lines. It is an extremely
sensitive debate for many horned Hereford breeders to
consider, but the pain and welfare issues concerning the
practice of dehorning will not subside as long as beef
calves are being sired by horned bulls and no analgesics
are being used to dehorn them.
Complete references for this article are available upon
request.
Take care.
Dehorning of Cattle
By Dr. Joseph Stookey, Professor
Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Saskatchewan
In June, 2000 the Expert Committee on Farm Animal
Welfare and Behaviour met in Guelph, Ontario, to set
research priorities and discuss emerging issues. This is
an annual meeting for the Expert Committee and involves
the gathering of scientists, industry representatives,
government officials, Farm Animal Council
representation, veterinarians and representatives from the
humane society and the animal welfare movement.
From a scientist’s perspective it is clear that we do not need
additional scientific studies to resolve some animal welfare
issues. On some issues the scientific information is
already quite clear and it is highly unlikely that new or
additional research would overturn previous finding. A
case in point would be the issue of dehorning cattle.
It appears that there is sufficient evidence (and no contrary
evidence) to make a sound recommendation to the beef
industry regarding dehorning of cattle. The question is
whether the industry will embrace the recommendation.
Below is one of the action statements adopted by the
Expert Committee this past June and the background
information that led to the recommendations. It is the
committee’s hope that the industry would embrace this
action statement. Using Polled Beef Sires to Dehorn
Beef Cattle Action Item: To promote the use of Polled
Sires within the Beef Industry within Canada.
Background:
Horns on beef cattle pose several disadvantages to the
cattle and to the beef industry. Horns are weapons that
are used by cattle in competitive encounters at the feed
bunk, hay bale, shade tree, water trough, over breeding
privileges or dominance and against man in offensive or
protective situations. Leaving horns on beef cattle makes
all of these encounters potentially more dangerous, both
to people and to other cattle.
When horns are left on feedlot cattle, the amount of
bruised trim from the carcasses has been reported to be
twice the amount measured from equivalent hornless
groups (Meischke et al., 1974; Grandin, 1980). Bruised
carcasses devalue the product. The Canadian Beef
Quality Audit has estimated that bruising costs the industry
$10 million a year.
The alternative is to remove the horns of feedlot cattle.
However, cattle dehorned in the feedlot experience a
setback in average daily gain that can be detected up to
106 days post dehorning (Goonewardene and Hand,
1991), evidence of the long term effects from the pain
and suffering that the dehorning procedure inflicts upon
cattle of this age. Dehorning cattle prior to arrival at the
feedlot, say at 3 months of age, does not circumvent the
painful experience (Sylvester et al., 1998). Dehorning
cattle shortly after birth using caustic paste or hot iron
has also been proven to be painful (Morisse et al., 1995).
The use of local anesthetics administered prior to
dehorning in calves has been shown to reduce the
behaviours associated with the immediate pain response
(Morisse et al., 1995; Sylvester et al., 1998), however, it
is not common practice within the beef industry to
administer analgesics prior to dehorning. Even when
local anaesthetics are administered prior to dehorning
their effectiveness in blocking pain is limited to a few
hours post dehorning. Cortisol levels rise after the effect
of the local anaesthetic wears off (Petrie et al., 1996)
evidence that post-operative pain extends beyond the
reach of local anesthetics alone. It is unlikely that the
beef industry would embrace the use of long acting nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs (such as ketoprofen) in
a combination with local anesthetics, which are needed to
control post-operative and immediate pain responses
(McMeekan et al., 1998; 1999), when the common
practice already is not to use local anaesthetics prior to
dehorning.
The logical alternative to dehorning and one that is
welfare and industry friendly is to use polled bulls to sire
calves that do not need dehorning. Horns are inherited as
an autosomal recessive gene, polledness being dominant
(Long and Gregory, 1978). In one breeding season a
producer can take a herd of horned cows and breed them
to a polled bull (homozygous for the polled condition)
and produce an entire calf crop of polled calves.
Historically, horned bulls may have been superior to their
polled counterparts, but today there is no scientific
evidence that polled bulls are inferior. Polled Hereford
and Charolais bulls at test stations have been found to be
no different or superior to their horned counterparts in
average daily gain, adjusted yearly weight, adjusted
scrotal circumference and backfat thickness (Stookey and
Goonewardene, 1996).
Polled German Simmental cattle were no different from their horned counterparts in growth, carcass yield, carcass composition, health and reproductive performance (Lange, 1989). Horned and
polled crossbred lines from various beef breeds were no
different in live weight, fertility and mortality rates
(Frisch et al., 1980). Recent comparisons of three beef
synthetic lines found no differences between horned and
polled cattle in weight at birth, weaning weight, pre- and
post-weaning average daily gain, carcass weight and
carcass characteristics (Goonewardene et al., 1999a) nor
were there differences in reproductive traits such as
pregnancy rates, dystocia scores, cow weights and cow
condition scores (Goonewardene et al., 1999b). To date,
there is no scientific evidence that polled animals are
inferior.
Dehorning beef cattle via genetics using polled
sires is the logical and welfare appropriate practice that
the beef industry should embrace and promote.
Since the Expert Committee met in June, additional
information has been obtained. It already appears that
the trend towards using polled beef bulls may be
increasing, regardless of the welfare issues, due to the
increase in popularity of some of the polled breeds
sought for their calving ease, color or carcass traits.
Exotic beef breeds in North America that were bred up
from foundation stock are reporting a gradual increase
toward the number of polled animals. For example, in
1989 the number of polled Limousins registered by the
Canadian Limousin Association represented only 18% of
the new registrations.
In 1999 the number of Limousins
registered as polled had increased to 49%. The same
trend has occurred in the Simmental breed with 14% of
the registrations in 1989 reported as polled, while 32% of
the animals registered in 1999 were reported to be
naturally polled. The Charolais breed in Canada is
moving, perhaps the fastest of any exotic breeds, towards
the polled animal. The frequency of polled animals
registered between 1988-1990 was already 38% and by
1998-2000 polled Charolais animals represented 65.5%
of the Association’s registrations.
Fortunately, the
presence or absence of horns is not thought to be
representative of superior or inferior animals for many of
the exotic beef breeds, in the sense that breeders or
buyers would avoid buying a polled bull. Instead
selection for polled animals in exotic breeds seems to be
the current trend. It is interesting to note that some
breeders in North America have begun exporting semen
and animals with the polled condition back to the country
where the breed originated and where polled animals are
not readily available.
Horned Hereford breeders seem to be the exception to the
trend and in some ways have used the horns as indicators
or “advertisements” of their tradition and selection for
specific traits. Many horned Hereford breeders would
resist switching to polled bulls simply to address the
issue of dehorning, because at the same time they would
have to give up tradition, possible clientele and years of
selection following specific lines. It is an extremely
sensitive debate for many horned Hereford breeders to
consider, but the pain and welfare issues concerning the
practice of dehorning will not subside as long as beef
calves are being sired by horned bulls and no analgesics
are being used to dehorn them.
Complete references for this article are available upon
request.
Take care.
