To be or not to be horned—Consequences in cattle

Knierim, Ute; Irrgang, Nora; Roth, Béatrice A.

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.014

Cited by 60 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The primary function of horns is male competition for mates (Lundrigan 1996), but they are also used for protection against predators and to aid in competition for resources (Stankowich & Caro 2009), and they may be involved in thermoregulation (Pares-Casanova & Caballero 2014). However, domestic cattle with horns pose a risk to other cattle and handlers (Knierim et al 2015), and can result in economic losses because of damaged hides and bruised tissue which must be trimmed when the meat is processed (Mendonca et al 2016;Youngers et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the effects of the bovine POLLED variants

Aldersey

Sonstegard²,

Williams

et al. 2020

Animal Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Horns are paired appendages on the head of bovine species, comprising an inner bony core and outer keratin sheath. The horn bud forms during early fetal development but ossification of the developing horn does not occur until approximately 1 month after birth. Little is known about the genetic pathways that lead to horn growth. Hornless, or polled, animals are found in all domestic bovids. Histological studies of bovine fetuses have shown that the horn bud does not form in polled individuals. There are currently four known genetic variants for polledness in cattle on BTA1. All of the variants are intergenic, but probably affect regulation of nearby genes or long non‐coding RNAs. Transcriptomic studies suggest that the expression of two nearby long non‐coding RNAs are affected by the Celtic POLLED variant, but further studies are required to confirm these data. Candidate genes located elsewhere in the genome are involved in regulating bone formation and epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition. Expression of one of these candidate genes, RXFP2, appears to be reduced in the fetal horn bud of polled animals carrying the Celtic variant compared with horned individuals. Investigating horn ontogenesis and the genetic pathway by which the POLLED variants prevent horn development has implications for cattle breeding. If the genetic basis of horn bud formation and polledness is better understood, then new targets may be identified for precision genome editing to create polled individuals.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the effects of the bovine POLLED variants

Aldersey

Sonstegard²,

Williams

et al. 2020

Animal Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fodder shortages in overpopulated shelters may predispose cows to malnutrition, with competition for meagre fodder, such as poor quality straw. Overstocking increases aggression between the cows especially at the feed bunk, leading to injuries which may sometimes be fatal, as most of cows in shelters have horns [69][70][71]. Based on our observations during our visits to the shelters and interactions with shelter managers, the segregation of the animals on the basis of sex, age and body condition could improve their welfare.…”

Section: Cow Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 89%

The Management of Cow Shelters (Gaushalas) in India, Including the Attitudes of Shelter Managers to Cow Welfare

Sharma

Schuetze

Phillips

2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gaushala management is a specialized profession requiring particular skills relating to the management of cow shelters or gaushalas, which are traditional and ancient Indian institutions that shelter old, unproductive and abandoned cows, The 1800 registered cow shelters in India have managers who are important stakeholders in the management of cows in these unique institutions. It is important to survey the routine management of these shelters and attitudes of the managers towards cow welfare to identify the constraints and welfare issues. We visited 54 shelters in six states of India for a face-to-face structured interview of the managers. Quantitative data collection included questions on demographics, routine management operations, protocols followed in the shelters and attitudes of the managers towards cow welfare. All shelters except one were managed by males, half of them were in the age range of 45–65 years, were university graduates or post-graduates, with 5–15 years shelter management experience, and with the majority having lived in rural areas for most of their lives. Each shelter housed a median of 232 cattle were housed, out of which 13 were lactating cows. The majority of managers vaccinated their animals against endemic diseases like foot and mouth disease, haemorrhagic septicaemia and black quarter (gangraena emphysematosa) and administered endo-and ectoparasiticidal treatments, however, hardly any screened the cattle for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Only 17% of the shelters had in house veterinarians and most cows died of old age, with an annual mortality rate of 14%. The majority of the shelters allowed the cows to reproduce. Access to pasture was available in only 41% of the shelters, while most allowed some access to yards. Most (57%) had limited biosecurity measures, but 82% of the shelters disposed of the carcasses by deep burial on their own premises or through the municipality, with 18% disposing of them in open spaces or nearby creeks. About one half of the shelters maintained records of the protocols followed routinely. Charitable societies ran half of the shelters, mostly through public donations, with accounts audited regularly. Most managers thought that shelter cows’ welfare was important and that they should attempt to improve it. They were less in agreement that their knowledge of animal welfare was adequate. Local support, more moral than financial, was recognized more than government support. Managers perceived cow welfare as important from a religious perspective, citing the mother god and caring for abandoned animals as frequent themes in their definition of cow welfare. Caring for animals, mother and goddess were key elements in managers’ perception of animal welfare. The recommendations arising from this survey include that the shelter managers should be involved in the decision-making process for the welfare of cows in shelters, which is vital for the sustainability of these unique institutions. Welfare could be improved by strict compliance with biosecurity measures and disease surveillance protocols, avoidance of unrestricted reproduction in cows and separation of males and females.

show abstract

“…It could be argued that this is a minor, even trivial, change to the physiology of the animal, with considerable welfare benefits. However, there is evidence to suggest that horns also have a role in thermoregulation and in self-grooming (Knierim et al 2015).…”

Section: Example 1: Polled Dairy Cattlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The stated welfare motivation is that cows without horns can do less damage to each other and to their human carers. There appears to be conflicting evidence as to whether cows without horns are less aggressive than those with horns; those with horns appear to keep greater distances from each other (Knierim et al 2015). The specific circumstances may also be important in identifying behavioural changes, e.g.…”

Section: Example 1: Polled Dairy Cattlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The specific circumstances may also be important in identifying behavioural changes, e.g. whether the cows are housed or grazing, different effects on high ranking or low ranking cows, or young cows newly being introduced into the herd (Knierim et al 2015). All these questions will arise whether the cows are polled as a result of genome editing, by physical removal of horns or natural polledness, but they serve to indicate the complexity of an issue which at first glance may appear simple.…”

Section: Example 1: Polled Dairy Cattlementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Genome Editing and Responsible Innovation, Can They Be Reconciled?

Bruce

2019

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genome editing is revolutionising the field of genetics, which includes novel applications to food animals. Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has been advocated as a way of ensuring that a wider-range of stakeholders and publics are able to engage with new and emerging technologies to inform decision making from their perspectives and values. We posit that genome editing is now proceeding at such a fast rate, and in so many different directions, such as to overwhelm attempts to achieving a more reflective pace. An alternative location for reflection is during the much slower process of taking products from the lab to market. We suggest emphasising Responsible Innovation, putting the 'I' back into RRI, and encouraging companies to embrace an RRI approach. We review some previous attempts at developing industry-relevant frameworks for RRI. We then describe two examples of genome editing in livestock; hornless cattle and disease resistant pigs, and reflect on the sorts of questions that could be considered in these two genome editing examples. This paper seeks to take forward the discussion on RRI by extending it to bringing products to market in the context of genome edited livestock.

show abstract

To be or not to be horned—Consequences in cattle

Cited by 60 publications

References 68 publications

Understanding the effects of the bovine POLLED variants

Understanding the effects of the bovine POLLED variants

The Management of Cow Shelters (Gaushalas) in India, Including the Attitudes of Shelter Managers to Cow Welfare

Genome Editing and Responsible Innovation, Can They Be Reconciled?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About