Attitudes of farmers towards cattle dehorning

Kling‐Eveillard, Florence; Knierim, Ute; Irrgang, Nora; Gottardo, Flaviana; Ricci, Rebecca; Dockès, Anne‐Charlotte

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.012

Cited by 36 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Good housing and natural behavior principles were not considered a priority in comparison to good feeding and good health principles, which is similar to what was reported by Reference [22] in a similar exercise with Flemish farmers and consumers. In addition, a note has to be made on the attitude toward disbudding/dehorning, which has been investigated among farmers [23], but it is almost unexplored among consumers. In this study, participants displayed a wide range of knowledge and concern about this practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal Welfare and Mountain Products from Traditional Dairy Farms: How Do Consumers Perceive Complexity?

Zuliani

Esbjerg

Grunert

et al. 2018

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryEuropean consumers recognize the added value of mountain dairy production and relate it to a composite of positive attributes. However, while consumers’ understanding of conventional dairy production and animal welfare has already been investigated, how consumers perceive animal welfare in traditional mountain dairy farming remains unexplored. This qualitative study aims at shedding light on consumers’ perceptions regarding animal welfare in mountain dairy cheese production systems. Focus group interviews were carried out with three major consumer groups that purchase mountain cheese including rural consumers living in mountain villages, urban consumers living in the plains, and urban consumers living in mountain cities. The results of this study show that all participants expect mountain farming to be on a smaller scale and mountain products to be healthier when compared to non-mountain farming systems. However, the verbal appreciation of certain husbandry and management choices especially in the case of urban consumers did not result in their recognition when pictures of traditional husbandry systems were provided, which displays a disconnection between the expectations towards mountain production systems and reality. These findings will support the development of a transparent science-based dialogue among mountain dairy chain actors on animal welfare and sustainable farming practices in mountain areas.AbstractThis qualitative study aims to investigate consumers’ perceptions toward dairy cow welfare in traditional mountain farms. While consumers’ understanding of conventional dairy production and animal welfare has already been investigated, how consumers perceive animal welfare in traditional mountain dairy farming remains still unexplored. Focus group interviews were conducted with consumers having different degrees of geographical proximity to mountains and with an explicit interest in local dairy products. The results of this qualitative study show that participants expect mountain farming to be on a smaller scale when compared to non-mountain farming systems and expect mountain products to be healthier. Similarly, all participants consider origin, locality, and small-scale production as relevant quality attributes of mountain cheese. However, the appreciation of these abstract features did not necessarily result in their recognition when sample pictures of traditional husbandry systems were provided especially in the case of urban participants. This study contributes to reveal the gap between urban consumers’ conception of mountain farming and the actual farming practices. It also indicates the need to promote an effective science-based dialogue on animal welfare that goes beyond an anthropomorphic perspective and tackles the complexity of farming systems in relation to the context in which they are located.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal Welfare and Mountain Products from Traditional Dairy Farms: How Do Consumers Perceive Complexity?

Zuliani

Esbjerg

Grunert

et al. 2018

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, Irrgang et al ( 107 ) examined effects of space allowance on antagonistic interactions in horned dairy cows waiting for milking, but did not include dehorned animals in the study. Kling-Eveillard et al ( 108 ) interviewed farmers from selected European countries, where the keeping of horned cattle is relatively common, and concluded that managing animals with or without horns is rooted in different views on the farming profession, on the human-animal relationship, and on the practical and daily work with the animals. Hence, even though non-relieved pain during and after removal of horns in calves most often is considered a welfare problem—based on the concern for animal affective states ( 14 )—the removal of the horns as such may also be considered a problem due to other concerns such as naturalness and this is not solved by use of NSAIDs and local anesthetics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare Effects of the Use of a Combination of Local Anesthesia and NSAID for Disbudding Analgesia in Dairy Calves—Reviewed Across Different Welfare Concerns

Herskin

Nielsen

2018

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across the international dairy industry, the vast majority of dairy herds have dehorned cows. Farmers choose to dehorn calves for different reasons such as easier handling of non-horned cattle and reduced risk of injuries in animals and staff. This review focuses on disbudding by use of hot-iron cautery as is practiced by dairy farmers in calves <3 months of age. We examine welfare effects of the use of NSAIDs in combination with a local anesthetic including indicators relevant for the three major welfare concerns—affective states, basic health, and functioning as well as the possibility to behave naturally. Across indicators of animal welfare, the majority of available evidence suggest that the use of NSAIDs in combination with a local anesthetic is advantageous in terms of animal welfare, and no studies suggest that NSAIDs are a disadvantage to animal welfare. However, irrespective of the welfare concern, use of NSAIDs combined with a local anesthetic does not fully eliminate the welfare challenges from disbudding. Further research is needed in order to fully understand the effects of this medication protocol on calf welfare, including knowledge about the duration of healing and the presence of long-term pain. At present, this lack of knowledge challenges the precise formulation of adequate pain management—in terms of medication protocol, duration, dosage, and type of administration.

show abstract

“…Ninety-two (78.0%) farmers performed injury management of animals after tail docking, including use of iodine, fly repellent sprays, and ointment. The low use of anesthesia, which was also observed for dairy calves (HötzEl et al, 2014) and cattle farms (KlINg-EvEIllaRd et al, 2015), showed that this is an urgent issue, since the use of anesthesia and analgesia is an absolute requirement when painful procedures are performed to animals (CfMv, 2009).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Knowledge of farmers' perceptions towards painful practices performed in farm animals is relevant to define arguments that can be useful to help farmers in improving or replacing some practices (KlINg-EvEIllaRd et al, 2015). therefore, it is important to understand the reasons given for tail docking, to refute them in cases where these suppositions are untrue or to account for reasons which are backed by science, and to value the opinions of farmers who do not tail dock their sheep.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

South Brazilian farmers’ perceptions concerning sheep tail docking

Stamm

Molento

2019

Cienc. Rural

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to better understand farmers’ perceptions regarding sheep welfare and procedures concerning the tail docking of sheep in the state of Parana, Southern Brazil. The study was carried out via telephone interviews or personally with 146 sheep farmers. Twenty-eight farmers (19.2%) did not tail dock; the main reasons given were because they raised short-hair sheep breeds. One hundred and eighteen farmers docked their sheep tails (80.8%). The main reasons given were hygiene (61.0%), facilitated mating (42.4%), breed standards (29.7%), and esthetics (26.3%). Rubber ring was the main method used for tail docking. Although farmers in Parana recognized that sheep are sentient animals and that tail docking causes pain, anesthesia was used by only six (5.1%) farmers during the procedure of tail docking. Our results showed that farmers’ opinions on sheep tail docking are divergent. Farmers who perform tail docking must be encouraged to use anesthesia and analgesia, and to ponder on the real need for the practice. This statement seems especially relevant considering the fact that some farmers reported the viability of maintaining wool sheep with undocked tails and that they recognized the suffering involved in this procedure.

show abstract

Attitudes of farmers towards cattle dehorning

Cited by 36 publications

References 14 publications

Animal Welfare and Mountain Products from Traditional Dairy Farms: How Do Consumers Perceive Complexity?

Animal Welfare and Mountain Products from Traditional Dairy Farms: How Do Consumers Perceive Complexity?

Welfare Effects of the Use of a Combination of Local Anesthesia and NSAID for Disbudding Analgesia in Dairy Calves—Reviewed Across Different Welfare Concerns

South Brazilian farmers’ perceptions concerning sheep tail docking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About