6. ANIMAL WELFARE
MAF has the responsibility of ensuring that the Minister of Agriculture and Government are provided with sound policy advice on animal welfare matters affecting the agriculture sector. Such issues could have market implications for New Zealand both internationally and domestically. Research into animal welfare issues is commissioned to provide information on which to base this advice. Dr David Bayvel, National Manager Animal Welfare, MAF Regulatory Authority, is the chief adviser to the Minister and, in consultation with the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), sets the research priorities.
Research projects in 1995/96 examined the handling and nutrition of bobby calves and farmer attitudes and practices regarding dairy cow tail docking.
6.1 Bobby Calves Welfare
6.1.1
Summary
Studies examined various aspects of bobby calf welfare in order to identify those features which are of particular importance for affirming or revising the current code (Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Bobby Calves 1993) and also investigated the limits set by one of the factors, nutrition.
The results have not yet been fully analysed. Provisional conclusions were that under the optimal conditions of the study, calves tolerated transport of up to 12 hours duration combined with 30 hours of starvation very well; provided the Code is followed and only healthy calves are transported, no major problems would be likely; and the data from the study represents the acceptable standard for those parameters measured which may now be used to assess breaches of the Code.
Preliminary analysis of the effects of starvation on induced calves aged 4 or 10 days after induction, and of the effects of prior feeding frequency (twice or four times daily) on the calves' tolerance of 30h starvation, revealed that, provided induced calves survive to 4 or 10 days after their induced birth the great majority can tolerate 30 hours of starvation without transport well. Data on the effects of prior feeding frequency on the capacity of calves to tolerate starvation, the pathophysiology and maturity of induced calves at pick-up on farms, and the interplacental transfer of blood in twin calves at birth, require further assessment before conclusions can be drawn.
| Objective 1: | Starvation limits for full-term calves | |
| Objective 2: | Induced calves; pathophysiology and nutrition | |
Description - Objective 1: Starvation limits for full-term calves
To examine whether the adequacy or inadequacy of the nutrition of bobby calves born at full-term is affected by non-nutritional factors including;
- hypothermia;
- dehydration;
- muscular activity (shivering, exercise); and
- stress (environmental, handling transport).
Although the main focus of this study is on nutrition, allowance is to be made for possible effects of feeding levels including; feeding levels before transport starts, post-natal age at pick-up, transport duration and density, and recovery time in the lairage.
Approach & Outcomes
The "Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Bobby Calves 1993", contributes to preventing major welfare problems but some areas are "best estimates" because scientific data were not available to aid the formulation of more precise standards. Studies aimed at identifying features of particular importance for affirming or revising the current code and also investigated the limits set by one of the factors, nutrition.
The experimental design allowed the effects of starvation for 30 hours (the maximum allowed by the Bobby Calf Code) and 12 hours of transport (the maximum allowed) to be separated. The operational conditions during this trial were optimal - the calves were kept under cover, they were fully fed according to the code, the weather was generally good, they were gently handled and kept in small groups, they were not repeatedly loaded and unloaded from the truck, and truck driving technique was good. Each calf had easy access to water troughs. The outcomes therefore relate to the ‘ideal’ situation, and the results therefore represent a benchmark against which operation in less ideal circumstances can now be judged.
The research results have not yet been fully analysed, but a verbal report has been provided to AWAC. Results were obtained relating to dehydration, diarrhoea, starvation and feeding frequency level before transport, transport, and refeeding after transport and starvation.
Preliminary conclusions are:
- If calves are given easy access to water via troughs during a period of starvation, whether linked with transport or not, they will drink. There was no evidence of significant dehydration in the calves studied.
- Under these circumstances dehydration does not occur to any significant extent. This was based on analysis of blood parameters, skin turgidity, other external features, and general clinical assessments.
- If calves do not drink in the lairage when part of the bobby process then perhaps they do not have easy access to troughs (not enough troughs for too many calves), the troughs are not calf-friendly for some reason(s), or the calves are exhausted upon arrival at the lairage and sleep rather than seek water.
- Under the optional conditions of this study, calves tolerated transport of up to 12 hours duration combined with 30 hours of starvation very well.
- Provided the Code is followed and only healthy calves are transported, then no major problems would be likely.
- The data from the study represents the acceptable standard for those parameters measured which may now be used to assess breaches of the Code.
- A significant number of calves actually arrive at the 'works' apparently exhausted and/or in poor clinical condition. A detailed study of the pathophysiological state of a large number of bobby calves as they arrive at the ‘works’, to assess the extent to which the Code is actually adhered to and the impact of additional factors, such as bad weather, was recommended.
Description - Objective 2: Induced calves: pathophysiology and nutrition
- To use diagnostic criteria, of proven efficacy in newborn lambs, to clarify the importance of the following predisposing causes of death and weakness in calves: placental insufficiency, intrapartum hypoxemia, immaturity, inadequate thermogenesis, and postnatal starvation;
- To devise practical criteria for the early identification of induced calves which require euthanaisa; and
- To conduct a pilot study to determine the maximum starvation period which may be tolerated by induced bobby calves at different postnatal ages.
Approach & Outcomes
Study of the effects of starvation on induced calves aged 4 or 10 days after induction, and of the effects of prior feeding frequency (twice or four times daily) on the calves' tolerance of 30h starvation, provided the following results:
- The preliminary analysis of these data reveal that, provided induced, calves survive to 4 or 10 days after their induced birth and the great majority can tolerate 30 hours of starvation without transport well.
- The effects of transport superimposed on starvation were not studied as part of this objective as it was considered desirable to evaluate starvation alone first.
- Data on effects of prior feeding frequency on the capacity of calves to tolerate starvation require further assessment before conclusions can be drawn.
Extensive data were collected on the pathophysiology and maturity of induced calves at pick-up on farms which still require detailed evaluation before conclusions can be drawn.
In order to study the interplacental transfer of blood in twin calves at birth, placental vascular anatomy is being correlated with haematocrit, at and 24 hours after birth, but the data remain to be assessed.
6.2 Tail docking and dairy cattle welfare
6.2.1
Summary
Following on from a review of scientific evidence regarding the practice of dairy cow tail docking, a study was conducted to compare the characteristics and views of farmers who dock with those who do not dock.
Interviews with dairy farmers who dock, and farmers who do not dock their cows’ tails, led to conclusions that there was little difference between the two groups of farmers in regard to general management and approach to farming or in awareness of health problems and health promotion strategies. Those who dock tended to have larger herds. Reasons given for docking included the unpleasantness and time pressure caused by dirty tails, leading to retaliation by milkers hit by them, maintaining milk and human hygiene and the time required to trim the brush. Docking was considered more necessary in sheds where the cups are put on from the back, in very large herds, herds milked by sharemilkers and for individual cows prone to being dirty.
More publicity was recommended, showing that the problems of undocked tails can be solved, and that research has shown no improvement in hygiene from docking. It was also recommended that tail docking should not be banned without a consultation time with farmers, but legislation may be required to change some farmers’ practices.
Description
To provide recommended strategies for encouraging the adoption of alternatives to tail docking of cattle from;
- conducting face-to-face interviews with samples of farmers who dock and do not dock;
- determining the role of socioeconomic, attitudinal and other factors on the tendency to dock or not to dock; and
- identifying factors that would be most likely to stop farmers from docking.
Approach & Outcomes
Tail docking of dairy cattle which occurs on about 60% of farms in New Zealand, is reported to enhance milk and udder hygiene and milker health and comfort during milking. This practice is illegal in many countries NZ trades with. However, little is published on the welfare consequences of tail docking.
In 1994/95 a review of scientific publications about tail docking concluded that the existing scientific evidence does not support the view that tail docking reduces the prevalence of mastitis, results in less bacterial contamination of milk, or reduces leptospirosis in staff. There is evidence that tail docking leads to greater problems for the cows from flies. Behavioural evidence suggests that a proportion of calves experience some discomfort or pain during tail docking.
In 1995/96, twenty Waikato dairy farmers, half of whom docked their milking herd and half of whom did not were interviewed about animal health and management issues, with a strong emphasis on docking. The interviews were taped, transcribed, and analysed qualitatively. A report was provided to MAF Policy.
Few clear cut differences emerged between those who docked and those who did not in terms of awareness of health problems and health promotion strategies. Those who had decided to stop docking gave a range of reasons for doing so. Some had been influenced by family members, some did so for welfare reasons, and some for aesthetic reasons.
Those who did not dock valued clean animals and cleanliness in the milking shed, and felt that they could manage their herds to maintain acceptable standards. None felt their milk grades had been affected by the presence of tails on their herd. Trimming the brush 2-3 times a year and washing particularly dirty animals in the shed was sufficient to maintain the animals at an acceptable hygiene level. The extra work was acknowledged, but was not felt to be excessive in most situations. Wet seasons may be a problem for some.
Situations in which docking was seen by non-dockers as more necessary were sheds where the cups were put on from the back, very large herds, and herds where sharemilkers were employed. Some individual cows were seen as prone to being dirty and requiring a different strategy from the majority, possibly docking.
Those who did dock emphasised the unpleasantness of handling cows with tails and the time pressure (to move tails aside or tie them up etc.) this placed on the farmer. Docking was said to reduce retaliation from farmers in response to contact from dirty tails and so be indirectly in the cows' interests. They also emphasised milk and human hygiene/cleanliness and the benefits to the cow of being clean. They had larger herds and may have been more reluctant to spend any additional time on tasks such as trimming the brush in Spring. Pressure from overseas markets to cease docking was mentioned by many of those interviewed (dockers and non-dockers) and had already influenced people to stop docking. Those who still dock were aware of this pressure but felt that it was misguided, and that information about the benefits of docking should be publicised.
The role of the media was seen as problematic and unlikely to be effective in creating a positive attitude to ceasing to dock, although it could play a useful role in publicising, and so reducing, unacceptable abuse.
It was concluded that there were no striking differences in general management and approach to farming linked to the decision to stop docking. Presence of docking among those with very large herds would be worth exploring.
The similarity amongst farmers, whether or not they dock, may be beneficial in facilitating change in behaviour. If one "typical" farmer can cope with cows with tails in the shed without any of the dire effects expected by those who do dock, this suggests that others will also cope if pushed into change by legislation banning docking. There is a need to publicise research results and experience of non-dockers showing no adverse effect of not tail docking, except for slightly increased human contact with the tail, and that the benefits of tail docking that are perceived by dockers (e.g. improved hygiene) have not been substantiated.
Banning docking without consultation with farmers would be resented. Farm consultants and other sources of information for farmers would need to be uniformly in favour of it. Ultimately legislation may be required to change some farmers’ practices.
Contact for Enquiries
Farm Monitoring Programme Manager
Monitoring and Evaluation
MAF Policy
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0623
Fax: +64 4 894 0741
Contact this person
