Calf aversion to hot-iron disbudding

Ede, Thomas; Lecorps, Benjamin; Keyserlingk, Marina A. G. von; Weary, Daniel M.

doi:10.1038/s41598-019-41798-7

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…that calves tended to avoid the pen associated with conspecific pain), warrants further study on the idea that the affective state of another calf can act as a conditioning stimulus. During the third and last test, the lack of place aversion was predicted and is consistent with previous work on conditioned pain preference in calves [21], as pens were expected to lose their association to treatment with repeated, unreinforced test sessions.…”

Section: Objective 2: Does Observing a Conspecific In Pain Lead To Cosupporting

confidence: 86%

“…We found no difference in time spent between treatment pens in the first session. We expected aversion to the pain pen to be strongest during the first test, based upon our previous observations of calf avoidance of a pen associated with their own disbudding [21]. However, in the current study observers were restricted to the central pen during demonstrations, so calves may have been motivated to explore the unfamiliar test pens when provided the opportunity in the first test session, allowing for treatment effects to emerge in the second session when calves were less motivated to explore.…”

Section: Objective 2: Does Observing a Conspecific In Pain Lead To Comentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social approach and place aversion in relation to conspecific pain in dairy calves

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite scientific interest in animal empathy, and growing public concern for farm animal welfare, the empathic abilities of farm animals remain under researched. In this study, we investigated empathic responses of young Holstein dairy calves to conspecifics recovering from hot-iron disbudding, a painful procedure common on dairy farms. A combination of social approach and place conditioning was used. First, 'observer' calves witnessed two 'demonstrator' calves recover from either a painful procedure (hot-iron disbudding and sedation) or a sham procedure (sedation alone) in distinct pens. Observer calves spent more time in proximity and paid more attention to calves recovering from the painful procedure compared to sham calves (proximity: 59.6 ± 4.3%; attention: 54.3 ± 1.5%). Observers were then tested for conditioned place aversion (in the absence of demonstrators) at 48h, 72h and 96h after the second demonstration; observers tended to avoid the pen associated with conspecific pain during the second of the three tests, spending 34.8 ± 9.6% of their time in this pen. No strong evidence of pain empathy was found, but our tentative results encourage further research on empathy in animals.

show abstract

Section: Objective 2: Does Observing a Conspecific In Pain Lead To Cosupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Objective 2: Does Observing a Conspecific In Pain Lead To Comentioning

confidence: 97%

Social approach and place aversion in relation to conspecific pain in dairy calves

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When given the choice between an environment paired with analgesic treatment and another paired with a control vehicle, injured rodents, but not their sham-treated counterparts, prefer the drug-paired environment 9 . A place conditioning paradigm has been used to demonstrate that calves will avoid an area where they experienced disbudding without post-operative pain control compared to an area where they received a sham procedure 10 or were disbudded with the use of an NSAID 11 . Place conditioning has not been used to assess ongoing pain in the weeks after the procedure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioned place preference reveals ongoing pain in calves 3 weeks after disbudding

Adcock

Tucker

2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hot-iron disbudding, a routine procedure that prevents horn bud growth through cauterization, is painful for calves. The resulting burns remain sensitive to touch for weeks, but it is unknown whether calves experience ongoing, non-evoked pain. We evaluated conditioned place preference for analgesia in 44 calves disbudded or sham-disbudded 6 hours (Day 0) or 20 days (Day 20) before testing (n = 11/ treatment). Calves were conditioned to associate the effects of a lidocaine cornual nerve block with the location and pattern of a visual stimulus, and a control injection of saline with the contrasting stimulus. On Day 0, disbudded calves tended to prefer the lidocaine-paired stimulus over the saline-paired one, suggesting that they found analgesia rewarding. On Day 20, sham calves avoided the lidocaine-paired stimulus, consistent with humans' experience of this drug being painful. Disbudded calves on Day 20 did not show this aversion, suggesting that they traded off the short-term pain of the lidocaine with the longer-term analgesia provided. Day 0 sham calves did not avoid the lidocaine-paired stimulus, likely because they received less than half the dose of Day 20 calves during conditioning. Thus, higher doses of lidocaine are aversive to uninjured animals, but disbudded calves are willing to engage in this cost. We conclude that calves experience ongoing pain 3 weeks after disbudding, raising additional welfare concerns about this procedure.

show abstract

“…There is also some evidence indicating that the post-operative pain is associated with persistent negative affective states. Calves experiencing hot-iron disbudding show conditioned place aversion (i.e., aversion of the room they have been dehorned in; [ 33 ]) and express depressive-like behaviors such as negative judgment bias [ 34 , 35 ] and anhedonia (a reduced ability to experience pleasure; [ 36 ]).…”

Section: Physical Mutilationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organic Dairy Cattle: Do European Union Regulations Promote Animal Welfare?

Duval

Keyserlingk

Lecorps

2020

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal welfare is an emerging concept in EU law; with the advent of specific regulations intending to protect animals. The approach taken by European lawmakers is to provide “minimum standards” for conventional farming; argued by some as failing to adequately protect animals. In contrast, the EU organic farming regulations aim to “establish a sustainable management system for agriculture” and promote “high animal welfare standards”. The first aim of this review was to identify key areas where there are clear improvements in quality of life for dairy cattle housed under the EU organic regulations when compared to the conventional EU regulations. Using the available scientific evidence, our second aim was to identify areas where the organic regulations fail to provide clear guidance in their pursuit to promote high standards of dairy cattle welfare. The greater emphasis placed on natural living conditions, the ban of some (but unfortunately not all) physical mutilations combined with clearer recommendations regarding housing conditions potentially position the organic dairy industry to achieve high standards of welfare. However, improvements in some sections are needed given that the regulations are often conveyed using vague language, provide exceptions or remain silent on some aspects. This review provides a critical reflection of some of these key areas related to on-farm aspects. To a lesser extent, post farm gate aspects are also discussed

show abstract

Calf aversion to hot-iron disbudding

Cited by 27 publications

References 50 publications

Social approach and place aversion in relation to conspecific pain in dairy calves

Social approach and place aversion in relation to conspecific pain in dairy calves

Conditioned place preference reveals ongoing pain in calves 3 weeks after disbudding

Organic Dairy Cattle: Do European Union Regulations Promote Animal Welfare?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About