Effect of a buccal meloxicam formulation on the behavioural response to ring castration of calves

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a buccal meloxicam formulation on the behavioural response to ring castration of calves. Sixty, 3-month-old, Angus calves (40 males, 20 females) were allocated to one of three treatments (n = 20 calves/treatment): (1) rubber ring castration (RING), (2) buccal formulation of meloxicam plus rubber ring castration (RING + BUCC) and (3) handled only (CON). After treatment, calves were observed in five pens (n = 4 calves/treatment/pen) and behaviour individually recorded for 1 min every 20 min, until 3 h post-treatment (9 min/calf). Castrated calves (RING and RING + BUCC) spent less time standing (P < 0.001) and more time lying (P = 0.001) than CON calves. RING and RING + BUCC calves were also observed standing in a stretched positon (P = 0.001) and walking abnormally (P = 0.001) more than CON calves. Further, RING and RING + BUCC calves performed more kicks (P = 0.008) and less pawing (P = 0.04) than CON calves. RING + BUCC calves tended to ruminate (P = 0.085) more than RING calves. Ring castration caused behavioural changes in calves indicative of pain, however, administering a buccal formulation of meloxicam to calves immediately before ring castration did not appear to reduce the acute pain response to this procedure. To thoroughly evaluate the efficacy of a buccal formulation of meloxicam on the pain response to ring castration of calves it may be necessary to observe the animals for longer and to investigate the timing of drug administration further.

Does UK licensed NSAID administration reduce signs of postoperative pain in calves castrated without local anaesthesia?

“…reported reduced plasma cortisol and haptoglobin concentrations following meloxicam administration so it would have been interesting to see if this coincided with behavioural changes as well. Conversely,Sutherland et al (2018) reported no improvement in pain behaviours following meloxicam administration. However, meloxicam was under-dosed; the datasheet states a dose of 0.5 mg/kg and each calf was administered 5 ml (at 10 mg/ml), but as mean calf weight was 111.7 kg the mean dose should have been 5.6 ml.…”

“…Ketoprofen was generally administered at a total dose of 3 mg/kg and flunixin was administered at variable doses of 3.33 mg/kg (Kleinhenz et al, 2018), 200 mg (Paull et al, 2015) and 1.1 mg/kg(Webster et al, 2013). It is also worth noting that in on-farm situations calf weight may be estimated, resulting in incorrect dose calculations and therefore ineffective analgesia, as inSutherland et al (2018).…”

“…, especially in older calves unused to human contact. Due to the limitations in both physiological and behavioural pain assessment methods, it is therefore preferable to use both together to obtain the most accurate results; of the studies appraised, all included both physiological and behavioural parameters in their analysis exceptRoberts et al, (2015) who only investigated physiological parameters andSutherland et al, (2018) who only investigated behavioural parameters Roberts et al (2015). reported reduced plasma cortisol and haptoglobin concentrations following meloxicam administration so it would have been interesting to see if this coincided with behavioural changes as well.…”

“…Of the five studies which showed improvement in both physiological and behavioural pain indicators, three investigated surgical castration(Laurence et al, 2018;Meléndez et al, 2018a;and Ting et al, 2003) and two investigated surgical and band castration together(Meléndez et al, 2018b;and Olson et al, 2016). Conversely, of the seven studies which showed no significant improvement in pain, four only investigated band castration(Daniel et al, 2020;Paull et al, 2015;Repenning et al, 2013;and Sutherland et al, 2018). It is worth noting that of all the studies appraised, only these four studies investigated band castration alone.…”

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Pharmacokinetics and Mitigation of Procedural-Pain in Cattle

“…may contribute to this non-descript administration outcome. For example, while some chose to assess Activity using accelerometers [ 27 ], others relied on behavioral observations of pen (e.g., walking) [ 31 ] or chute [ 28 ] activities. Such inconsistencies further limit the development of robust conclusions and recommendations for pain management in cattle.…”