ABSTRACTS
The history of mulesing and research to find a replacement
Prof Jim Rothwell, School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Queensland
Mulesing was invented by John Mules in 1929 and at that time involved the removal of the lateral skin folds on the breech. The operation was modified in the 1940s to also remove skin around the vulva and anus leading to a stretching of the perineal bare area, and further modified to involve removal of skin from the dorsal surface of the tail. In the late 1940s the radical mules was devised, which linked the lateral breech cuts with the tail cuts and this is essentially used today. It was developed by trial and error, largely by mulesing contractors. The mules operations are very effective at reducing the incidence of breech strike and saved the lives of millions of sheep.
In 1938 Manchester was the first of many scientists who tried to find less painful, yet effective, alternatives to mulesing. Topical caustic potash (1938), topical phenol (1976), topical and intra-dermal injection of quaternary ammonium compounds (e.g. cetrimide, 1993, 2005), freezing (1976, 1990), high energy electrons (1990), 5-amino levulinic acid and light (2000), collagenase (2004), clips (2006), intradermal injection of SLS (2007) and breeding have been investigated as alternatives to mulesing.
Many of these methods were able to cause full thickness necrosis of the skin, subsequent scab/eschar formation, sloughing of the scab and contraction of the adjacent perineal bare areas similar to mulesing. With the possible exception of phenol the topical treatments caused delayed pain and discomfort in some cases equivalent to surgical mulesing. Intra-dermal treatment required less chemical than topical treatment and may not have caused the same level of pain as topical treatment, an assumption that needs to be tested. Full-thickness skin necrosis was associated with discomfort as the scab formed and matured, due to restriction of movement, and there was some discomfort associated with the wound contraction itself. The welfare implications of that discomfort have not been resolved. Only the 5-ALA plus light treatment and possibly high energy electrons caused true depilation.
Attitudes of Australian sheep farmers to animal welfare
Prof Clive Phillips, Centre for Animal Welfare & Ethics, University of Queensland
Previous research has indicated that Australian livestock producers believe that long-term welfare issues, such as poor nutrition and low-quality stockmanship are more important welfare problems for their animals than short-term painful procedures, such as dehorning of cattle; whereas the reverse is true for animal welfare activists.
A nominated sample of 48 Australian cattle and sheep producers were subjected to a semi-structured interview to identify the major welfare problems on their properties and in the industry, as well as influences on their sensitivity to animal welfare and how it has changed over time. Responses were examined for themes, and a report was circulated with mean responses and anonymised common viewpoints in a Delphi process.
Sheep producers demonstrated a caring attitude to their animals, mostly self-generated, with some influence of their spouse and father. Most believed that their sensitivity to welfare was largely unchanged over time. Poor nutrition was believed to be the biggest welfare issue on their property, but mulesing was recognised as the biggest challenge to the industry. Producers considered that husbandry advances have improved the welfare of their animals over the course of their involvement in the industry. There was little use of pain control, mainly because of the cost and time required to administer it.
It is concluded that there is some incongruity between the issues that livestock producers believe are the major welfare issues on their properties and those that are the focus of activist campaigns.
To close your eyes will not ease another’s pain: the challenge of assessing pain in animals
Prof Natalie Waran, School of Natural Sciences, Unitec, New Zealand
Over the past decade there have been significant changes in the way animal pain is regarded, accompanied by increased public demand for optimal care for animals. This has been accompanied by an increased number of studies into the behavioural and physiological responses of animals to aversive stimuli or events.
Animal welfare is about the feelings experienced by animals: the absence of
strong negative feelings, usually called suffering, and (probably) the presence
of positive feelings, usually called pleasure. In any assessment of welfare, it is
these feelings that should be considered, but at this time they cannot be investigated directly. In humans, pain is what the patient says it is - pain is a subjective experience. It is clear that pain responses vary between species, for example it has been stated that prey animals often show few signs of pain when attacked and may show teleologic stoicism, masking their pain to avoid appearing vulnerable to predators. Assessment of animal pain tends to be a value judgment relying on accurate recognition and measurement of physiological and behavioural changes or indices that have been validated through scientific study. Given that recognition and alleviation of animal pain is paramount in safe-guarding animal welfare it is essential that there is consensus regarding pain recognition and management within those responsible for treating or managing pain. In this paper I will discuss some issues regarding pain recognition and the impact this has on animal welfare.
Keynote address – Animal pain: elimination or alleviation
Prof Kevin Stafford, Co-director of Animal Welfare Science & Bioethics Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Animals feel pain; it is a useful, but unpleasant experience, which helps identify dangerous circumstances and may assist in convalescence. We do not know how animals experience pain, but there is general agreement that pain should be minimised where possible. In the last three decades a suite of analgesic drugs, principally non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, has become available to veterinarians. These supplement the local and general anaesthetics which were previously available, and the opioid drugs which are not much use as analgesics in ruminants. This increase in the availability of analgesics has allowed for more effective pain relief.
There are difficulties, however, in delivering complete analgesia to the many farm animals subjected to painful husbandry procedures. These difficulties are due to ignorance, technical limitation and legal restriction, plus economic issues. We remain ignorant about many aspects of pain in animals. Chronic pain is a particular issue about which we have little real knowledge. There are technical difficulties in administering local anaesthetic to the large numbers of lambs castrated and tail-docked on many sheep farms. These difficulties include administrative methodologies and the danger of infection following injecting local anaesthetic into the testicles and tails of lambs under farm conditions. Legal restrictions may not allow farmers to use some useful analgesic drugs, limiting their use to veterinarians. Economic factors, including time, do not encourage farmers to use analgesia when dealing with large numbers of lambs, calves or piglets.
Eliminating pain in farm animals usually involves using a local anaesthetic plus a systemic analgesic. The latter may have to be administered for some days or even weeks to guarantee pain is eliminated completely. Pain may be reduced (alleviated) by using specific techniques (e.g. short scrotum versus ring castration), carrying out the procedure at a specific age, using local anaesthetic, or using a systemic analgesic. These efforts at pain relief alleviate but do not eliminate it. These practices, however, may be practicable and cheap.
It is the belief of the author that encouraging the alleviation of pain caused by husbandry procedures on farm animals (e.g. castration, dehorning, docking) is an important step towards pain elimination. Insisting on elimination is difficult because of our ignorance and our inability to deliver adequate analgesia in an efficient and practical manner.
Welfare challenges in extensive livestock production systems
Dr Carol Petherick, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries
Australia’s extensive rangeland livestock production systems create several challenges for minimising pain and suffering. These production systems, particularly in the north of the country, are low-input in terms of labour and infrastructure, and properties are stocked with hundreds or thousands of animals in hundreds or thousands of hectares. The industry norm is to muster stock to yards a few times a year for the conduct of management procedures. This has two significant consequences for the animals: they are generally monitored and closely inspected only at these times (although limited inspection can occur at watering points) and they are generally not of an optimal age for the conduct of painful management procedures.
From research conducted on management procedures such as dehorning, castration, spaying, mulesing and tail-docking, there is little doubt that they cause pain. The stress and pain from such procedures will generally be less in younger than in older animals because younger animals are smaller; the amount of restraint required will be less and the size of wounds reduced, resulting not only in less pain, but also faster healing times. In the northern beef cattle industry the average calf age at weaning, which is when dehorning and castration are often conducted, is 5-8 months and calves weigh, on average, 150-250 kg. To conduct procedures on young calves would require multiple musters and handlings of cattle. Furthermore, the age at which horns erupt is very variable and it can be difficult to determine, when they are young, whether calves actually require dehorning (they may be polled or develop only scurs).
To minimise pain, the challenge is to either develop alternatives to current procedures or to use anaesthetics and/or analgesics for pain relief. Research has been and continues to be conducted on both these strategies, but there are still significant issues to overcome. For example, selective breeding of polled Bos indicus cattle, which will eliminate the need for dehorning in the northern herd, will take at least a couple of decades to be promulgated through the industry, even if there is success in identifying gene markers for poll status. The use of local anaesthetics for dehorning is constrained by their acquisition and use by non-veterinarians and their application, particularly to relatively large animals. Further research is required on the effectiveness of post-operative analgesics.
Lack of frequent monitoring and inspection of rangeland livestock has implications for pain because producers do not know where animals are and are unaware of their welfare status. The welfare status of rangeland livestock can change dramatically in a relatively short timeframe, such as in response to sudden changes in the weather, predation or accident. Whilst it may be unreasonable to expect producers to protect livestock from these occurrences, a lack of frequent monitoring means that producers do not intervene in a timely way and there is the potential for stock to experience significant pain and suffering. In Queensland, at least, producers have a legal obligation (“Duty of Care”) to intervene should animals be sick or injured, but the current Model Codes of Practice for the Welfare of Animals (cattle and sheep) provide little information of the frequency and thoroughness of stock inspections. Some would argue that this is an unsatisfactory situation and that producers should put measures in place (e.g. increased labour and time) to frequently inspect all stock. Others would point out that to do so would make the cost of meat and fibre production prohibitive. Advances are being made, however, in relatively low-cost technologies, such as wireless sensor networks, which allow remote monitoring of livestock and, if these systems prove robust and reliable in the rangeland environment, they offer the potential for timely intervention to reduce pain and suffering.
Animal Care and Protection Act and animal management
Dr Rick Symons, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries
The Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 has as one of its purposes the protection of animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable pain.
It places a duty of care on people in charge of animals to look after the animals by providing food, water, and shelter; treatment when they are ill or in pain; providing for their behavioural needs; and handling them appropriately.
The Act provides guidance on this by recognising standards that achieve a balance between the welfare of animals and the interests of persons whose livelihood is dependent on animals. In achieving this balance the Act recognises that standards should reflect advancements in scientific knowledge and changes in community expectations about practices involving animals.
The Act recognises 20 standards in the form of Codes of Practice.
The Codes of Practice currently allow for management practices that cause animals pain. Examples are castration, branding, dehorning, mulesing, de-beaking and tail docking. These are allowed because, at the time the Codes were developed, it was considered that they provided a balance between the needs of the farmer and the needs of the animal, i.e. because analgesia was, in most instances, impractical and there were few viable alternatives.
Such practices therefore are not a breach of Duty of Care, nor considered as cruelty under the Act, provided they are done with due care.
However, community attitudes to painful management practices are changing and this will result in pressure to change standards. How can the animal industries respond to this?
There are three approaches to bring about change, reduce the need for the practice, replace the practice with a less stressful one, or reduce the impact of the practice on the animal.
However, the most important response is to recognise the need for change and then take steps to make it happen. This will not occur overnight and needs a long term investment in targeted research. This is occurring in some sectors but some animal industries have in the past been slow to develop a strategic approach to dealing with animal welfare issues and provide assurances to the community and markets that they recognise the issue and are dealing with it.
If the animal industries do not make changes then it is likely that they will lose control of the agenda and the changes will be made by government and the courts.
