Tail-Docking Alters Fly Numbers, Fly-avoidance behaviors, and Cleanliness, but not Physiological Measures

Abstract

Tail docking is an animal well-being issue not only regarding the docking procedures but also because of concerns during fly season. To address the latter question, we selected eight cows that had been tail-docked in a previous experiment and eight nondocked cows matched by stage of lactation. Physiological, immunological, and behavioral measures were used to evaluate the well being of those cows housed in a tie-stall barn during fly season for 5 consecutive days. Behavior was observed for 5-min interval instantaneous scan samples for 1 h each at 0800, 1200, and 1600 h. Flies were counted before behavior observations. Blood samples were taken daily for plasma and leukocyte separation. Cows were scored on d 5 for cleanliness on a five-point scale. Docked cows were cleaner, but fly counts of docked cows were greater for total fly counts and rear leg counts. However, counts were not different on front legs. Time of day was significant, so each time of day was analyzed separately. Docked cows were observed to exhibit fewer tail swings at 0800 h, but docked cows tended to ruminate more at that time. Docked cows tended to stand less at the 1200 h observation. Total fly-avoidance behaviors were greater for all cows at the 1600-h observation. Only tail swings tended to be more frequent with docked cows, but foot stomps occurred only in the docked cows. Lymphocyte phenotypes, acute-phase proteins, and immunoglobulin concentrations did not differ. In conclusion, although docked cows were cleaner, as the fly numbers increase throughout the day, fly-avoidance behaviors also increased and foot stomping appeared as an alternative method for fly avoidance by docked cows.

Survey of Dairy Management Practices on One Hundred Thirteen North Central and Northeastern United States Dairies

“…Little merit was found for docking with regard to health or hygiene, although there were differences between cows (Tucker et al, 2001). Tail-docking research by Purdue University scientists and USDA-ARS Livetock Behavior Research Center from 1997 to the present demonstrated that cow and heifer well-being can be compromised by acute pain, increased sensitivity, or chronic pain in the stump, as well as increased fly numbers and irritation (Eicher et al, 2001;Eicher and Dailey, 2002). The American Veterinary Association (AVMA, 2005) is officially opposed to tail-docking.…”

“…Tail-docking and SCC are often mentioned in association with one another, although docking does not significantly affect SCC (Eicher et aL, 2001;Schreiner and Ruegg, 2002). Dairies with tail-docked cows had an average SCC of 223,000 cells/mL as compared with nondocked cows at 237,000 cells/mL (P = 0.95).…”

Tail docking in horses: a review of the issues

“…However, the effect of docking is not clearly demonstrated. Depending on studied indices, either no difference was found between docked and undocked dairy cows in udder cleanliness or health (Tucker et al, 2001) or docked cows were found to be cleaner than undocked ones (Eicher et al, 2001). On the other hand, docked cows have more flies due to a significant increase in fly numbers on the rear legs.…”

“…Tail swings were the most frequent fly-avoidance behaviour recorded in intact cows. Finally, docked cows stood more and exhibited increased general restlessness than intact cows when the fly numbers increased, indicating that they were uncomfortable (Eicher et al, 2001;Eicher and Dailey, 2002).…”

US Resident Perceptions of Dairy Cattle Management Practices

“…Those practices with more than 10% of respondents reporting negative implications for welfare were feeding of a GMO-free diet, feeding of an organic diet, the use of antibiotics for sick animals, tail docking and dehorning. Given that numerous studies have reported welfare problems, such as pain in cattle as a function of tail docking and dehorning [18] [19] [20] [21], respondents' views of these as impinging on cow welfare were unsurprising. The views that feeding (GMO-free) diets that are often publicly lauded as safer, healthier or more sustainable [22], and treating of ill animals with antibiotics negatively impacted cattle welfare were unexpected and difficult to explain.…”