The effect of different combinations of lignocaine, ketoprofen, xylazine and tolazoline on the acute cortisol response to dehorning in calves

Stafford, KJ; Mellor, D. J.; Todd, Sarah; Ward, R.N.; McMeekan, C.M.

doi:10.1080/00480169.2003.36370

Cited by 59 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A combination of ketoprofen and lidocaine (Stafford et al, 2003;McMeekan et al, 1998), phenylbuthazone plus lidocaine (Sutherland et al, 2002) and flunixinmeglumine plus lidocaine , have been shown to control pain after scoop dehorning. Similar results were obtained in hot-iron dehorned animals treated with ketoprofen associated with lidocaine (Faulkner and Weary, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing plasma cortisol and behaviour of calves dehorned with caustic paste after non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory analgesia

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing plasma cortisol and behaviour of calves dehorned with caustic paste after non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory analgesia

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It caused a significant but short-lived rise in cortisol that was largely back to baseline levels 2-3 hours after surgery. Local anaesthesia reduced struggling during the procedure and pain-related behaviours and plasma cortisol rose for a few hours afterwards, but only the combination of local anaesthesia and a NSAID (ketoprofen, meloxicam or carprofen) effectively controlled pain (Stafford et al, 2003;Stilwell et al, 2007Stilwell et al, , 2012Heinrich et al, 2010).…”

Section: Castrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems

2012

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information given in previous Opinions "Welfare of cattle kept for beef production" (SCAHAW, 2001) and "The risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems" (EFSA, 2006) is updated and recent scientific evidence on the topics reviewed. Risks of poor welfare are identified using a structured analysis, and issues not identified in the SCAHAW (2001) beef Opinion, especially effects of housing and management on enteric and respiratory diseases are reviewed. The Opinion covers all systems of beef production, although the welfare of suckler cows or breeding bulls is not considered. The Chapter on beef cattle presents new evidence and recommendations in relation to heat and cold stress, mutilations and pain management, digestive disorders linked to high concentrate feeds and respiratory disorders linked to overstocking, inadequate ventilation, mixing of animals and failure of early diagnosis and treatment. Major welfare problems in cattle kept for beef production, as identified by risk assessment, were respiratory diseases linked to overstocking, inadequate ventilation, mixing of animals and failure of early diagnosis and treatment, digestive disorders linked to intensive concentrate feeding, lack of physically effective fibre in the diet, and behavioural disorders linked to inadequate floor space, and co-mingling in the feedlot. Major hazards for white veal calves were considered to be iron-deficiency anaemia, a direct consequence of dietary iron restriction, enteric diseases linked to high intakes of liquid feed and inadequate intake of physically effective fibre, discomfort and behavioural disorders linked to inadequate floors and floor space. © European Food Safety Authority, 2012 KEY WORDSBeef cattle welfare, welfare of calves in intensive farming systems, risk assessment, updates. SUMMARYFollowing a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) was asked to deliver a Scientific Opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and of calves in intensive farming systems.The European Commission is in the process of evaluating the European Union policy on animal welfare, taking account of socio-economic and trade issues. The overall aim is to improve the welfare of animals. To this end, the Commission requested EFSA to give an independent view on animalbased measures for the assessment of welfare in cattle, pigs and poultry. Before starting this work for beef cattle and calves, the Commission requested an update of scientific evidence relating to the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and calves in intensive farming systems; in particular, to consider the extent to which the conclusions and recommendations of two previous Scientific Opinions were still valid. These Opinions were the "Welfare of cattle kept for beef production" (SCAHAW, 2001) and "The risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems" (EFSA, 2006).The SCAHAW (2001) Opinion "The Welfare of Cattle kept for Beef Production" differed from EFSA Opinions, in that it did not includ...

show abstract

“…In piglets, several techniques for the use of local anaesthetics were described to provide shortterm analgesia (White et al, 1995;Haga and Ranheim, 2005;Ranheim et al, 2005;Haga et al, 2006;von Borell et al, 2009). Before disbudding calves and dehorning in cattle and goats, it is recommended to sedate the animal (McMeekan et al, 1999;Stafford et al, 2003;Stewart et al, 2009) and to administer a local anaesthetic (Lepkova et al, 2007). Nevertheless, sedated calves could be unable to react to pain due to strong muscular relaxant effect of xylazine (Stilwell et al, 2010).…”

Section: Soothe Pain Caused By Procedures Considered Unavoidablementioning

confidence: 99%

Minimising pain in farm animals: the 3S approach – ‘Suppress, Substitute, Soothe’

Guatteo

Levionnois

Fournier

et al. 2012

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, the French National Institute for Agricultural Research appointed an expert committee to review the issue of pain in food-producing farm animals. To minimise pain, the authors developed a ‘3S’ approach accounting for ‘Suppress, Substitute and Soothe’ by analogy with the ‘3Rs’ approach of ‘Reduction, Refinement and Replacement’ applied in the context of animal experimentation. Thus, when addressing the matter of pain, the following steps and solutions could be assessed, in the light of their feasibility (technical constraints, logistics and regulations), acceptability (societal and financial aspects) and availability. The first solution is tosuppressany source of pain that brings no obvious advantage to the animals or the producers, as well as sources of pain for which potential benefits are largely exceeded by the negative effects. For instance, tail docking of cattle has recently been eliminated. Genetic selection on the basis of resistance criteria (as e.g. for lameness in cattle and poultry) or reduction of undesirable traits (e.g. boar taint in pigs) may also reduce painful conditions or procedures. The second solution is tosubstitutea technique causing pain by another less-painful method. For example, if dehorning cattle is unavoidable, it is preferable to perform it at a very young age, cauterising the horn bud. Animal management and constraint systems should be designed to reduce the risk for injury and bruising. Lastly, in situations where pain is known to be present, because of animal management procedures such as dehorning or castration, or because of pathology, for example lameness, systemic or local pharmacological treatments should be used tosoothepain. These treatments should take into account the duration of pain, which, in the case of some management procedures or diseases, may persist for longer periods. The administration of pain medication may require the intervention of veterinarians, but exemptions exist where breeders are allowed to use local anaesthesia (e.g. castration and dehorning in Switzerland). Extension of such exemptions, national or European legislation on pain management, or the introduction of animal welfare codes by retailers into their meat products may help further developments. In addition, veterinarians and farmers should be given the necessary tools and information to take into account animal pain in their management decisions.

show abstract

The effect of different combinations of lignocaine, ketoprofen, xylazine and tolazoline on the acute cortisol response to dehorning in calves

Cited by 59 publications

References 30 publications

Comparing plasma cortisol and behaviour of calves dehorned with caustic paste after non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory analgesia

Comparing plasma cortisol and behaviour of calves dehorned with caustic paste after non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory analgesia

Scientific Opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems

Minimising pain in farm animals: the 3S approach – ‘Suppress, Substitute, Soothe’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About