A nationwide survey on producer and veterinarian perceptions of the painfulness of procedures and disease states in dairy and beef cattle

Abstract

Failure to adequately manage pain in cattle causes suffering and is thus a welfare concern for the livestock industry. The objectives of this study were to summarize caregiver perceptions of the painfulness of various procedures and disease conditions in cattle. This survey also assessed factors that impact the perception of painfulness and determined relationships between pain perception and mitigation in producers and veterinarians in the United States beef and dairy cattle industries. An online survey was distributed via organization listservs and social media groups representing beef and dairy veterinarians and producers. The survey included questions about respondent demographics and pain perception and frequency of pain mitigation use for a variety of common husbandry procedures and disease conditions in cattle less than 2 months, 2–12 months, and greater than 12 months of age. Descriptive statistics were generated, and ordinal logistic regressions were used to assess the relationship between perceived pain level, frequency of pain mitigation use, and respondent demographic factors (e.g., gender, age, and role). There was a relatively low percentage of respondents that identified there was “no pain” associated with the listed procedures and conditions. Across the majority of procedures and conditions and cattle age categories, men perceived procedures to be less painful than women (P < 0.05). Veterinarians and producer-veterinarians perceived procedures to be more painful than producers (P < 0.05) for the majority of procedures and conditions. There were some differences identified between respondent age groups in pain perception but the trends were not consistent across procedures and conditions. There was a significant positive linear trend, with greater perceived pain associated with greater likelihood of providing local and systemic analgesia for all procedures and conditions across all cattle age categories (P ≤ 0.02). Perception of pain is complex and multifactorial, and it influences the likelihood to treat pain in cattle. This research highlighted the importance of understanding how these factors may play a role in increasing the use of pain mitigation within the beef and dairy industries.

How do different members of the on‐farm mobility team perceive lameness, and what factors influence their NSAID use?

“…The likelihood that people with different job roles would prescribe, recommend or prefer the use of NSAIDs for each scenario followed a similar pattern to pain scores. This suggests that the likelihood of using NSAIDs may be linked with how painful the condition is perceived to be, which is consistent with previous findings 22,27 . Responding farmers most often reported a yield in the range of 8000–10,000 L per year, suggesting that these herds may be broadly reflective of the national herd, given that the mean yield in the UK was 8206 L per cow per annum in 2021 (AHDB, 2022).…”

“…This suggests that the likelihood of using NSAIDs may be linked with how painful the condition is perceived to be, which is consistent with previous findings. 22,27 Responding farmers most often reported a yield in the range of 8000-10,000 L per year, suggesting that these herds may be broadly reflective of the national herd, given that the mean yield in the UK was 8206 L per cow per annum in 2021 (AHDB, 2022). However, the majority of the farmers reported a lameness prevalence of less than 10%, in contrast to a reported mean prevalence of approximately 30%, 8,9 suggesting that the responding farmers were underestimating the prevalence of lameness on their farms, which has been identified previously in New Zealand.…”

Pain Assessment in Cattle by Use of Numerical Rating and Visual Analogue Scales—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Out of the 39 articles retrieved for full-text screening, 13 were only excluded due to not working with a NRS or VAS but would have otherwise fulfilled all other criteria. This is a limitation of the present study, as pain assessment was conducted in these articles, even if not by using NRS or VAS, but agreement with either "Yes/No" [34] or other predetermined statements [35,36], or pain scales ranging from five (e.g., "not important" to "extremely important" [37], "not painful" to "severe pain", including "cannot assess" [38]) to six ("no pain" to "worst pain imaginable" [39,40]) categories.…”