International Symposium on Beef Cattle Welfare

The first International Symposium on Beef Cattle Welfare was held last week at Kansas State University. Developed by KSU's Beef Cattle Institute, the Symposium drew over 700 participants both in attendance as well as viewing live webcasts at feedlots, veterinary practices, veterinary college and other places. More than 20 U.S. and international speakers — experts in cattle welfare — covered numerous welfare, animal health, regulatory issues and other topics. The Symposium also included a live cattle handling demonstration by renowned cattle handling experts.
     Dr. Dan Thomson, director of the Beef Cattle Institute, said, "The beef industry is perceived as being on the leading edge of animal welfare in the livestock industry. The producers who were there were proud of the job they are doing with welfare and they want to continue to improve and make our industry more open to the public. We also agree we need to condemn any in our industry who do not use proper welfare standards."
     For more information on the conference, visit http://isbcw.beefcattleinstitute.org

Action items include transparency

Dr. Dan Thomson, director of the Beef Cattle Institute, believes the following action items are needed as the beef industry moves forward maintaining and improving beef cattle welfare:

• Universally define the critical control points of welfare, including defining objective outcomes.
• Continue to use and improve quiet, effective handling of animals.
• Research techniques, economics, efficiencies and potential pain mitigation of surgical procedures.
• Improve and/or manage environmental conditions such as mud management and providing shade.
• Work on long-term strategies to reduce feedlot cattle death loss, including programs such as pre-conditioning calves.
• Develop audits that are science-based and beta-tested, and stringent enough and more difficult to pass which will help measure improvements in animal welfare.
• Become open to the public and promote our industry and the good job producers do.
• Be honest about the areas we still need to improve.
• Condemn those who do wrong in the livestock industry.
• Educate consumers about the industry and livestock production.

Quiet, gentler handling pays off

Cattle are prey animals and as such their horizontal pupils see the world differently than humans. Cattle can see widely around them, but do not see above them and they have very poor depth perception. For this reason, livestock handling experts say moving toward and then behind the globe of the eye is an ideal spot to encourage cattle to move past you. Handling expert Curt Pate, Helena, Mont., noted during a live cattle handling demonstration that handlers should also be aware that cattle ear tags can obstruct the animal’s vision, and he advised producers to swing wider on those sides of the cattle.
     Also, finding the one "instigator" in a group of cattle that riles them all up, and then focusing on settling that animal down can help in the overall task of moving cattle where you want them to go.

Consumer thinking on animal welfare

A survey by Oklahoma State University asked roughly 1,000 consumers questions regarding farm animal welfare issues. Dr. Jayson Lusk, Oklahoma State University, said consumers ranked farm profitability more important than farm animal welfare, implying that the financial well-being of U.S. farmers is more important than farm animal welfare. Issues directly related to human welfare (poverty, health care, food safety) were roughly five times more important than the well-being of farm animals. "Animal welfare is low compared to other societal issues, but people still want welfare issues to be worked on," Lusk said.
     Lusk noted that 56 percent of respondents said decisions on animal welfare should be made by experts, not the public. However, only 54 percent said just scientific measures should be used for animal welfare decisions, while others wanted moral/ethical standards to apply.
     Lusk said ongoing research into this topic will involve real people making decisions with real money and real animals including their care. People will be able to "build their own farm" with associated costs. "The software program for this will calculate a monetary value on the system the person creates that will be reflected in the price of the food produced."

Retailers call the shots for New Zealand

New Zealand exports 82 percent of its beef to world markets. Major grocery wholesalers and retailers use animal welfare issues as marketing tools, and non-governmental organizations have put pressure on retailers to only sell product that has been produced under "acceptable" animal welfare conditions. An animal welfare act passed in 1999 by the New Zealand parliament includes prosecution of producers for a failure to meet a minimum standard of care and welfare. Land transport and pre-slaughter management are tightly controlled by veterinary inspectors at slaughter plants.
     "The system is successful as it is inclusive and there have been few prosecutions of beef farmers," said Dr. Kevin Stafford of the Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Massey University, New Zealand.

Welfare and handling start young

Training beef calves from a young age to trust human handlers can be accomplished at birth and shortly thereafter. Dr. Tom Noffsinger, Benkelman, Neb., likes producers to walk or ride through cows and their new calves to encourage them to "pair up" better with each other and strengthen the calf-cow bond. It also teaches the calves to respond to “pressure” and move where a handler wants it to go. "By doing this, sick calves become a lot more apparent," Noffsinger said. "Investing this time will save time down the road at weaning or branding. Each encounter is a chance to shape behavior which becomes the foundation for subsequent behaviors."

U.S. efforts for beef cattle welfare

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association has a long history of promoting animal welfare. They had developed "The Producer Code of Cattle Care" as well as videos as far back as the early 1990s. In 2003, NCBA released the Care and Handling of Beef Cattle guidelines.
     "The process was science-based, utilizing recognized experts, and literature search and publications such as those published by the Federated Animal Scientist Society, to develop the guidelines," explained Dr. Bob Smith, Veterinary Research and Consulting Services, Stillwater, Okla. "At the same time, producer input was essential to ensure that the guidelines formulated were workable — without that, there was little chance that the industry would embrace them. In the end, we believe the original objectives — credible, workable and affordable — were met."

Welfare policies may benefit or cost producers

Establishing responsible public policy for the use and care of animals used for food is a complex, multi-faceted process that includes consideration of ethical frameworks (e.g., moral, religious, cultural), scientific knowledge, economic impact, and political agendas. Dr. Gail Golab, director of the Animal Welfare Division of the American Veterinary Medical Association says under a voluntary framework, those keeping, caring for, or processing animals will readily adopt approaches that are (or perceived to be) the most efficient and cost-effective. However, animal welfare policies and their changes may also have a neutral effect on costs or efficiencies associated with production and may be adopted simply for their animal-welfare benefit or as a public reputation builder.
     Welfare-friendly changes in production or processing may also reduce efficiencies, adversely affect product quality, or increase costs. "The ability to compensate for losses in efficiency, product quality, or profit will thereby influence whether and how quickly the latter welfare-friendly practices may be adopted," Golab said. "Under the regulatory framework, those involved in the keeping and processing of animals for food may be forced to adopt animal welfare-friendly practices, irrespective of their impact on efficiencies in production."
     To see AVMA’s animal welfare policies, click here.

Shade proves beneficial for feedlot cattle

Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California, Davis, has researched ways to cool feedlot cattle and reduce environmental stress, and has discovered both welfare and economic benefits of shade.
     In studies, heifers in pens with shade compared with controls in unshaded pens had higher dry matter intake, average daily gain and final body weight. Carcass traits were similar between treatments, but more carcasses of shaded heifers Graded Choice, and the incidence of dark cutters was decreased in carcasses from shaded heifers. In west Texas, there was an $18/head improvement in cattle performance in shaded pens.
     "The effect of shade on the ground temperature was to make it cooler, and cattle would lie down more during the day and dissipate body heat on the cooler ground," Mitloehner said. "Shaded cattle would spend time resting during the day and at night would spend time eating and drinking." Resting during the day also decreased the amount of dust stirred up in the pens.

Euthanasia of cattle — when to say when

Livestock producers share a moral obligation to ensure the welfare of animals in their keeping. Therefore, when there arises disease or injury conditions that diminish quality of life or create pain and suffering that cannot be effectively relieved by medical means, euthanasia is indicated. Dr. Jan Shearer from the University of Florida provided examples of when cattle should be euthanized versus sent to slaughter. For more information on euthanasia guidelines, visit the American Association of Bovine Practitioners.
     Indications for euthanasia include:

• Fractures of the legs, hip or spine that are not repairable and result in immobility or inability to stand
• Paralysis from traumatic or calving-related injuries that result in immobility
• Diseases that result in a significant loss of production (e.g. severe mastitis in dairy cattle)
• Advanced eye disease (e.g. cancer eye in cattle)
• Disease conditions where cost of treatment is prohibitive
• Disease conditions where prognosis is poor or time to expected recovery is unusually prolonged
• Rabies suspect animals — where there is significant threat to human health (these animals should be attended to or seen by a veterinarian)

The "Five Freedoms"

Dr. Tom Noffsinger, Benkelman, Neb., believes there are "five freedoms" that cattle deserve. They are: freedom from hunger and thirst, environmental stress, disease, anxiety and injury. For example, in newly-arrived feedlot cattle, non-eaters and non-drinkers can be created through stress, unfamiliarity, social disruption, no opportunity to get to the bunk, dehydration and exhaustion. "These are all management-related issues," Noffsinger said.
     We can't control the weather, but environmental stress can be reduced in situations of cold and wet weather by scraping pens and managing the mud that impedes cattle movement and contributes to lameness. "We need to have strategies in place to reduce these challenges," Noffsinger said.

Quotables

Steve Kopperud — Policy Directions, Inc.
"We don't have a problem that needs a solution; we have a challenge that needs reaction and pro-action." "The consumer wants and demands red meat. We need to think less about product sales and more about selling the producer, the process and the commitment. Let's put a face on the issue and sell the producer and the process along with the product." "The industry needs to commit to earning back consumer trust. If the activists win, the cost is consumer trust." "The strategy of the anti-livestock movement is if you can't regulate or legislate producers out of business, then cost them out of business." "The public wants to know they are getting ‘good food from good people'. We are the experts on handling cattle. We don't talk about it because we assume the trust will always be there."

Dr. Donald Broom, Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology, University of Cambridge
"It is in the interests of the public and animal producers for legislation and codes of practice to be trusted by the public and based on scientific evidence. Hence there should be a national committee of animal welfare scientists who can provide authoritative reviews of the international scientific literature on particular issues where laws or codes are needed. Action needs to be taken quickly before there is a wide-ranging increase in mistrust of animal producers. Producer organizations should be proactive in considering animal welfare issues before they are forced by public opinion to act defensively."