- Email: [email protected]
Trading off animal welfare and production goals: Brazilian dairy farmers' perspectives on calf dehorning
Author’s Accepted Manuscript Trading off animal welfare and production goals: Brazilian dairy farmers' perspectives on calf dehorning Clarissa Silva Cardoso, Marina A.G. von Keyserlingk, Maria José Hötzel www.elsevier.com/locate/livsci
PII: DOI: Reference:
S1871-1413(16)30033-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.02.010 LIVSCI2951
To appear in: Livestock Science Received date: 31 October 2015 Revised date: 23 February 2016 Accepted date: 26 February 2016 Cite this article as: Clarissa Silva Cardoso, Marina A.G. von Keyserlingk and Maria José Hötzel, Trading off animal welfare and production goals: Brazilian dairy farmers' perspectives on calf dehorning, Livestock Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.02.010 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Trading off animal welfare and production goals: Brazilian dairy farmers' perspectives on calf dehorning
Clarissa Silva Cardoso1, Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk2, Maria José Hötzel1* [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
1
Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-Estar Animal, Departamento de Zootecnia e
Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil; 2
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada * Corresponding author: Maria José Hötzel ([email protected])
ABSTRACT Dehorning of young calves is a routine management practice used on many dairy farms around the world. Dehorning is done to minimize injuries to stockpersons and other cattle. Most stakeholders not associated with the dairy industry frequently criticize this procedure, arguing that it is painful for the animal, which is supported by scientific evidence. Although research has shown that the pain associated with dehorning can be mitigated through the use of pharmacological tools, many farmers still routinely dehorn their calves without the use of pain mitigation. To elicit views regarding dehorning practices used on calves, including evaluating the importance of this procedure in the overall management of the herd, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 37 farmers located in southern Brazil. Participants recognized 1
dehorning as a required management practice but also identified it as a painful procedure, showing empathy for the animals. However, participants appeared to trade off production and welfare goals, frequently stating that high production was more important than the welfare of calves as justification for not using pain mitigation when dehorning. The lack of knowledge regarding means to mitigate pain associated with dehorning was identified as a primary barrier preventing the routine adoption of pain mitigation strategies. It was clear that advisors from public and private extension programs were the primary source of knowledge on dehorning. This work indicates the urgent need for extension efforts to include information on science based best practices targeted at dairy producers and dairy industry professionals advising producers regarding dehorning of dairy calves.
Keywords: attitudes; dairy production; ethics; horns; pain
INTRODUCTION Around the world, most dairy calves are dehorned within the first few months of life. This practice is recommended (AVMA, 2014) to ensure the safety of handlers and to reduce aggression among conspecifics (view also discussion in Knierim et al., 2015). However, increasing evidence suggests that the majority of people not involved in dairy production tend to reject practices they perceive to cause pain to animals (Vanhonacker et al., 2008; Fredriksen et al., 2011; Miele et al., 2011; Robbins et al., 2015). Disbudding is the destruction of the cells of the horn bud (AVMA, 2014) and normally takes place when the horn bud is approximately 5 to 10 mm (Stafford and Mellor, 2005). In 2
contrast, dehorning refers to the removal of the horns after they have formed and attachment to the skull has taken place, at approximately 8 wks of age (AVMA, 2014). The most common procedures used to destroy the horn bud cells involve cauterization through hot or electric iron (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2009; Vasseur et al., 2010; Gottardo et al., 2011: Stock et al., 2013). Use of caustic paste to chemically destroy the horn tissue is less common (9% operations, USDA, 2010), but is also painful (Stilwell et al., 2008). Around the world the usual method to disbud calves is the hot iron. As it is well established that cautery disbudding is a painful procedure (reviewed by Stafford and Mellor, 2011), strategies have been developed to mitigate these effects. Local anaesthetics block the cornual nerve, reducing the pain at the moment of the procedure, but this does not address post operative pain (Faulkner and Weary, 2000). Regardless of method used to disbud, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that post operative analgesia (e.g. NSAIDs) can help control the pain in the hours following the procedure, particularly when used in association with local anaesthetics (Stafford and Mellor, 2011; Stock et al., 2013). Globally there is growing recognition amongst professional organizations that pain mitigation should be used when disbudding or dehorning (e.g. AVMA, 2014). In Brazil, the Federal Council of Veterinarians recommends that anesthesia be used when disbudding (up to 8 weeks of age) and, dehorning (up to 6 months of age). However, for animals greater than 6 months that are dehorning both a sedative and local anesthesia must be used (CFMV, 2008). Recommendations for organic production frequently vary from that of conventional systems; for example, in Brazil dehorning is not permitted by the organic production legislation, and disbudding is only permitted "when necessary", and must be done at an "appropriate age" to "reduce the painful process" (Brasil, 2011). Despite these scientific advances, the adoption of dehorning practices 3
that incorporate pain mitigation remains slow within the farming communities around the world (USDA, 2010; Vasseur et al., 2010; Hötzel et al., 2014; Cozzi et al., 2015). There has been a growing interest in understanding the views and knowledge of different stakeholders working within the dairy industry on dehorning practices (e.g., farmers: Gottardo et al., 2011; Wikman et al., 2013; Kling-Eveillard et al., 2015; veterinarians and dairy consultants: Hewson et al., 2007; Thomsen et al., 2012; Hötzel and Sneddon, 2013). These studies identified different factors associated with low adoption of dehorning practices that incorporate pain mitigation, including herd size, type of production, perceptions regarding cost, individual sensibility toward pain, and belief that farmers will neither adopt the practices nor would they pay for them. The role of farm advisors in the promotion (or not) of proven best practices for on farm use has also received some interest. For instance, extension agents (e.g. agronomists, agricultural technicians and veterinarians) of southern Brazil believe that the pain associated with disbudding and dehorning is brief and of little consequence to calves, thus promoting the fact that pain mitigation is not necessary (Hötzel and Sneddon, 2013). Robbins et al. (2015), working with a wider group of primarily North American dairy industry stakeholders (dairy producers, veterinarians, students and researchers) also reported similar arguments by those arguing against the use of pain mitigation. These studies suggest that specific cultural and traditional factors may influence the knowledge, perceptions and views of stakeholders that underlie the decisions regarding dehorning. Therefore, the aims of this study were to firstly investigate the views of farmers in southern Brazil regarding dehorning dairy calves, including their preferred method of dehorning and the pain associated with this practice and, secondly, to provide insights into potential solutions that may increase the use of pain mitigation while dehorning. 4
METHODOLOGY This study used a qualitative approach and consisted of in-depth interviews. Data collection was based on the methodology proposed by Corbin and Strauss (2007) and Minayo (2008). This research was approved by the Ethics Committee of Research with Human Beings of Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil (1828/2011). Thirty-one farms were visited in 16 municipalities of the northwest and southeast of Santa Catarina (located between 25°57'41''S and 29°23'55''S), Brazil. Together, these two regions account for 79.3% of the milk produced in the state (ICEPA, 2014). Furthermore, Santa Catarina is the fastest growing dairy state in Brazil in the last 10 years (IBGE, 2006). Small family farms produce 80% of the milk in Brazil and 85% of the milk in the study region (IBGE, 2009). Following Article 4 of the Land Act established by Law n. 4504 as of November 30, 2004, farms in Santa Catarina up to 72 ha in area are considered "family farms". The last national census estimated the average herd size in the state at 24 cows (IBGE, 2009), which is supported by recent surveys (Costa et al., 2013; Hötzel et al., 2014). As discussed by Balcão et al. (in press), farmers in the region responded to the drive for modernization that began approximately five decades ago, resulting in changes focused primarily on management and infrastructure (e.g. dairy cows' feeding strategies, milking equipment, herd size and total milk production) but not farm size. Recruitment was based on two criteria, with the same number of the farms in each group: 1) milk production was the main economic activity, and 2) existence of a fully functional system to supply drinking water to cows on pasture. The latter criterion was used to infer ongoing investment in dairy production and some concern for the welfare of cows. 5
Standard practice in qualitative research determines that an adequate number of interviews be undertaken such that no new information arises from additional interviews (Robson, 1993). In the present study, data saturation was reached at 37 interviews, which were undertaken on 14 farms with individual farmers (11 men and 9 women), 14 farms with the husband and wife together, and 3 farms with the husband and wife, some of their children and other family members. The farms were all family run, i.e. all labour was provided by immediate or closely related family members.
In-depth interviews Participants were invited to respond to an open-ended, semi-structured interview script (Minayo, 2004). Initial questions covered demographic information. All subsequent questions sought to capture the farmer's views and knowledge about dehorning and the reasons underlying these views, as well as their perceptions regarding the pain felt by calves. After 25 interviews it became apparent that, unless solicited, participants did not comment on possible strategies that could be used to mitigate the pain associated with dehorning. We therefore included an additional open-ended question specifically about this issue, where we invited participants to discuss the need for these methods and which methods they thought were available. All interviews were done by the same interviewer (the first author) to ensure consistency, and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by the first author. Numbers were assigned to each participant and appear with each quotation. Quotes were translated to English by the first and last author. Analysis of the interviews was done according to the methodology proposed by Minayo (2008) and Corbin and Strauss (2007). Briefly, this involved the transcribed text being
6
exhaustively read and coded into themes according to the key aspects of the interview script. After discussions the authors reached the final analysis.
RESULTS Participant and farm information The dairy farms visited had been in operation on average 17 years (range 5-35 years), were on average 28 ha in size, and had on average 16 (range 8-36) lactating cows. On average 5 people lived on each farm (range 2-9), and the average age of the participants varied, with the adult women being on average 42 years old (range 25-60 years), and the adult men 47 years old (range 31-66 years). Approximately half of the farmers had 1 to 4 years of primary school education, whereas the other half had at least some high school education, one had an undergraduate degree and one a post graduate degree. Farmers were assisted by state funded extension agents (e.g. agronomists, agricultural technicians and veterinarians) and by consultants associated with the dairy industry. In this study we will use the term 'dehorning' to include both disbudding and dehorning. Our reason for doing so was because is was not clear the exact age that the farmers did the procedure, but many clearly indicated that they dehorned their calves when they were more than two months of age. Dehorning of calves was a routine practice performed on all farms; participants stated that all replacement heifers and, in many cases, all bull calves were dehorned. With the exception of one farmer who disbudded his calves using caustic paste, all others used the hot iron (heated using fire) or electric iron (the difference between the electric and the hot iron is that the first keeps a constant temperature, whereas with the hot iron farmers need to be reheated in the fire). Farmers varied in their responses when questioned at what age calves were 7
dehorned; three of them dehorned their calves when they were 30 days old, six farmers completed this task when the calves were 60 days old, and nine farmers indicated that they only dehorned their calves when the calves were greater than 60 days of age. Five farmers admitted not knowing the age of the calves but rather based their decision on vague criteria such as when the horns appear and three others when calves are young. One participant reported using a sedative when dehorning, but no participant made use of anaesthetics or post-operative antiinflammatory drugs.
Farmers' views regarding the effect of dehorning on the production system Avoiding aggression among adult animals was the primary reason given by the participants for dehorning. Participants were unanimous in stating that the horns hinder management because they increase the level of aggression between animals [e.g., It needs to be done because later it is worse (Farmer 16, female); (...) without the horns they do not hurt each other (Farmer 28, male)]. Participants also commented that increased aggression is bad for milk production as cows can hurt their udders (or surrounding area), or cause abortions. A number of participants stated that the problem of intra-herd aggression had risen as herd size has increased in recent years. Some participants also stated that the adoption of rotational grazing systems has increased the problem of aggression within their herds. Participants explained that implementation of the rotational system exacerbates the dominance interactions, given that this system requires a previous pasture/paddock to be divided into smaller sections, thus decreasing space availability per animal. A number of the participants stated that the milking parlour and general handling facilities, including the feeding areas, were all designed for cows without horns. As one participant stated ...horned cows cannot fit in the milking 8
parlours (...) (Farmer 24, male). The only advantage ascribed to horns was limited to participants referring to the improved ability to restrain the cows by their horns to facilitate the milking procedure. It was apparent through the discussions that many of the participants adopted a pragmatic approach when deciding the age at which dehorning should take place and the time of year. With regards to the age of the calves, they spoke of having to use less force to retrain animals while doing the procedure, It must be done when she's young, it is much easier to hold her and do it [referring to dehorning] (Farmer 7, female), or the need to be able to see the horn, She can't be too young, because then there is no sign of the horn (Farmer 29, male). One participant, when informed by the interviewer that calves could be dehorned in the first few weeks of age (see Stafford and Mellor, 2011), questioned the information: Then it is not possible, she's far too young. You need to wait until she grows and you can see the tip of the horn (Farmer 28, male). Some farmers stated that they preferred to dehorn when the temperature is cooler as this would avoid flies at the wound, and thus in some cases (depending on what time of year the calf was born) they justified dehorning at an older age.
Farmers' views regarding the effect of dehorning on the animals Through their statements, farmers revealed their perceptions regarding the effect of dehorning on the calves. Many farmers mentioned that the dehorning procedure causes pain, or that calves suffer when dehorned, and that they feel pity of these animals [e.g., (...) that hurts like crazy, burning the skin (...) I always feel pity for the animals, they open their mouth like crazy, imagine the flesh burning! (Farmer 18, male)]. Indeed some farmers anthropomorphized the pain of dehorning and comparing it with human pain, as shown in the following statements: 9
The animals are just like us, it must hurt (Farmer 17, male) Yes, they must feel [pain], because the only difference between an animal and a person, in my view, is the way they walk (...) (Farmer 32, male) Most of the participating farmers justified their choice of dehorning method in terms of reducing the amount of pain associated with dehorning. However, the perception about which method would be the least painful varied: some considered the hot iron to cause the least amount of pain, while others stated that the electric iron was the most humane. Despite 19 of the 37 participants having knowledge about caustic paste dehorning, only one participant stated that he utilized the caustic paste, arguing that this method is the least painful. In contrast, 13 participants expressed negative beliefs about caustic paste dehorning, with many stating that it was associated with the risk of hurting animals. Specific examples included comments on the corrosive nature of the paste and the danger of the paste dripping to other parts of the animal's body [e.g., I'm not much of a fan of this paste (...) if you do not take care it may drain and blind the heifer; if you use too much it can corrode too much (Farmer 2, male)], and that there was an increased risk of the horns growing in the future. Interestingly, despite most admitting never having used caustic paste on their own farms, they frequently referred to reports of bad experiences that had taken place on other farms: I never used it... if others say it is not recommended, then one doesn't even try (Farmer 19, male). Other participants expressed scant knowledge about the caustic paste: Now there is another method done with an ointment, but I don't really know how it is (Farmer 28, male). Many participating farmers justified their choice of dehorning calves when they are young in terms of reducing the pain felt by the animals. The majority of participants indicated that when the animals are young they have less strength, they suffer less, or it is not as painful 10
[as in older animals] (Farmer 14, male). However, it should be noted that calves of up to eight months old were included in the category young by many of the participants. Many of the participants made reference to signs of pain expressed by calves (e.g., vocalizations, kicking and jumping) during the dehorning procedure, while others described the calves as experiencing dizziness, fever, head shaking and lowering the ear after the procedure. There were different views among participants regarding the duration of the pain felt by the calf; some reported signs of pain for some days after the procedure, while others indicated that the pain was brief and restricted to the moment of the procedure, or possibly for a few hours after dehorning. They [the calves] get traumatized (...) for some days, and then they forget (Farmer 5, female) She [the calf] gets shy for some days, because they are sensitive (Farmer 8, male) After she [the calf] gets up, she needs help because she is dizzy, so she walks and keeps quiet and then she's eating the grass or something like that (...) in the [following days] they eat normally, ears are normal (Farmer 15, female) One participant, despite recognizing the practice of dehorning as painful, traded off the immediate pain for future benefits: Of course, there is suffering, but in return in future the cows will not get hurt (Farmer 27, male). Interestingly there were also negative views towards the animals with horns and also towards the horns per se. For example, some farmers referred to the cows with horns using terms such as bandits, bad, bossy, preponderate, cocky, they have power in the horns and the horn is the worst crap. These views were in some cases extremely strong, as some farmers specifically stated that they did not feel any pity towards dehorning adult cows, or culling them from the herd: 11
I don't pity dehorning the 'bossy' cows because they hurt the others (...) (Farmer 23, female) The bad one, she goes to the butcher... a cow that is mad, that wants to horn, that one goes to the butcher (Farmer 11, female). Another theme that came up during the interviews was an aesthetic sense related to the horns: cows with horns were frequently referred to by farmers as being ugly, horrible and the fact that they had horns was viewed as a sign of untidiness. In contrast, cows without horns were seen as more beautiful [e.g., With horns, they are ugly (Farmer 33, male)], and more docile [e.g., Oh, they get much more docile, you know... (Farmer 10, female)].
Farmers' views regarding the use of medicaments to prevent or reduce the pain caused by dehorning One of the aims of this study was to solicit farmers' views on the use of methods to control the pain caused by dehorning. Although the majority of the participants reported applying grease, fat or healing sprays to prevent flies and cool the wounded area, only five farmers talked spontaneously about the use of medicaments to control the pain. In the last 12 interviews participants were probed on this topic, because none of the previous interviewees had mentioned the issue, and it became evident that there was little knowledge in this group of participants regarding pain mitigation strategies. For example, one farmer stated, No, I never heard of it, not around here [about anaesthesia] (Farmer 26, male); and another one, Anaesthesia? I never thought of it. I don't know if you can use a drug to avoid the pain of dehorning (Farmer 33, male). Of the 17 farmers that talked about the use of pharmacological tools to control the pain associated with dehorning, 11 did not consider it necessary [e.g., I don't think it's necessary 12
(Farmer 33, male)]. In their assessment, the suffering caused by dehorning was brief and, therefore, pain mitigation was not warranted. Participants frequently compared young heifers and old cows' pain at dehorning in their justification that younger animals do not feel pain to the same extent as older animals, for example: For the little ones there's no need, because they practically do not feel... (Farmer 34, female) In the young ones there is no need because they do not suffer as much as the old cattle (Farmer 4, male) There is no need, it is only a bit burn [referring to the feeling of burning]. Thus they do not suffer much, but just a bit. The young ones, they do not even bleed. Only in the old ones it is necessary (Farmer 28, male) However, 5 farmers agreed with the need to use medicaments to control the pain associated with dehorning: I would use it (Farmer 33, female) Yes, in that case it would be good to do it (Farmer 31, male) If that makes the animal not to feel pain, it would be a good idea (Farmer 29, male) Another farmer demonstrated his lack of knowledge to support his choice, by saying, Yes, if there were something to avoid making the animal suffer, because the least suffering... but not general anaesthesia to make the animal sleep, that is an exaggeration (Farmer 32, male). Several farmers raised the issue of cost when confronted with the topic of using drugs to control the pain. One individual stated: ...you invest a lot, and then you do not have return (Farmer 36, male) and, No ... it's an extra cost; it is an extra cost over again, and we always have to lower costs, otherwise... (Farmer 35, female). The issue of keeping costs low was presented as matter-of-fact by one farmer, when asked why she thought the veterinarian did not offer to use 13
anaesthesia to dehorn their calves she responded: Because we would have to pay for the anaesthesia, and they want to make it cheaper for us, I think that's why (Farmer 34, female).
The introduction of the practice of dehorning in the region Although this was not an objective of the study, the interviews brought forward an interesting account of the introduction of dehorning in the region that may explain the knowledge and attitudes of farmers towards the issue. According to the farmers, extension agents and dairy consultants introduced the practice of dehorning in the region approximately two decades ago [e.g., It started maybe 15 years ago... (Farmer 35, female)]. It was one change within a myriad of changes that took place when new techniques and practices were introduced by private and government programs that were aimed to professionalize milk production in the region: We started dehorning about ten years ago, after they founded the cooperative and we started going to courses and specializing more in milk production (Farmer 15, female). Public extension agents and advisors from the dairies spread information about the issue through farm visits, lectures and courses where, according to reports from the participant farmers, they explained about the need to dehorn the dairy cattle [e.g., …a professor came here and said we had to disbud (Farmer 27, male); …a veterinarian said that with horns you don't get milk. Without horns you get more milk (Farmer 33, male)]. Before that, the procedure was not used in the region [e.g., …the tradition of dehorning did not exist in the region (Farmer 24, male)]. At that time extension agents recommended hot iron as the best option [e.g., They taught us with the hot iron (Farmer 26, male)], and advised against the caustic paste [e.g., …he [the extensionist] said that the best way to do it is with the hot iron, because he said that there was a
14
product to put over the horn but he did no recommend it because it may drain into the eye [of the calf] and she could go blind (Farmer 19, male)]. Although the extension agents and dairy consultants appeared to send a clear message regarding the need to dehorn, there appeared to be some confusion regarding the age at which calves should be dehorned. For instance one participant stated: The extensionist said we should do it when the calf is young, but he did not say what age (Farmer 28, male). Some participants associated the introduction of dehorning with advancement or modernization of milk production [e.g., Because, in fact, knowledge came to us, right! Before that we did not have the knowledge (...) (Farmer 26, male)]. It was also clear that farmers considered the new technique an advancement that improved the management and the quality of life of the cows and the farmer [e.g., Oh, now they became much more docile... we have one with horns, and every now and then one is hurt (Farmer 10, female); Afterwards I realized that it is better to deal with them without the horns (Farmer 8, male)]. For the current generation of farmers dehorning is accepted as a tradition [e.g., Everyone that produces milk dehorns (Farmer 26, male)], and not dehorning is not considered an option, If I had to work today with cows with horns I would stop, I think... (...) we are so used to it now, right... (Farmer 32, male). However, there was also recognition that change was not easy for everyone. For instance, when extension agents started recommending the dehorning, the former generation did not receive it well [e.g., …they thought “my God, it is absurd to dehorn the animals” (Farmer 31, male)], and according to some participants, some of them refused to dehorn their animals. The fact that acceptance of the practice was gradual was expressed in reports like, Earlier, we felt uneasy... it felt a bit odd... (Farmer 27, male) or, Talking about dehorning used to be difficult (Farmer 31, male). 15
DISCUSSION Dehorning was an established practice on all participating farms, but it is a practice that farmers described as a relatively recent innovation. Farmers viewed dehorning as positive and even necessary for the operation of the system, and considered it a necessary component for advancement or modernization of their production systems. Despite acknowledging that dehorning was painful, the participants in this study had on average very little knowledge that strategies exist that control the pain associated with dehorning. However, regardless of whether they were aware of the benefits associated with using pain mitigation strategies (or not), most justified the practice of dehorning based on benefits associated with managing adult cattle that had been dehorned. For instance, farmers justified the need to dehorn their calves based on the existence of milking parlours and feeding systems where cows are provided supplemental feed (e.g., cows with horns would have difficulty accessing the feed), and the use of rotational grazing systems, which reduces the space availability per cow and thus increases aggressive interactions. Participants viewed the introduction of these management practices (that they argued necessitated dehorning) as improvements that needed to be adopted if they were to be an active participant in the technologically based transformation of the Brazilian agricultural sector. This transformation, spearheaded by official state extension programs (Martinelli et al., 2010; Schneider and Niederle, 2010), has taken them from family-based subsistence farming to active participants contributing to commercial agriculture. This change, which began in the 1960's and 1970's, involved significant government investment targeted at improving food safety in urban centres within Brazil. This in turn resulted in a shift within the agricultural communities towards 16
modernization and industrialization of agriculture in the 1990's (Chaddad and Jank, 2006). Collectively these initiatives have contributed to the rapid transformation of agricultural activities traditionally dominated by smallholder family farmers, such as maize and milk (Chaddad and Jank, 2006), that helped Brazil becoming one of the top global producers of food animal products in a relatively short period of time (von Keyserlingk and Hötzel, 2015). Given the Brazilian government's desire for rapid transformation, it was not surprising that according to farmers of this study, state extension agents and dairy consultants presented dehorning as a necessity to align with this goal of modernization. Indeed, farmers' statements show that they incorporated this concept of necessity, going so far as to vehemently denying the feasibility of not dehorning their calves. This view has been also shown in Europe, where German organic farmers also describe dehorning as a practice introduced in the context of industrialization of animal production and some Italian farmers that associate dehorning with a modern farm, in the sense that, a modern cattle farm has dehorned animals (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2015). The introduction of loose housing systems in Europe in the 1960's and 1970's has also been associated with the perception of necessity to use polled animals for dairy production (Windig et al., 2015). However, some argue that housing and management may be improved to accommodate cows with horns (Knierim et al., 2015; Menke et al., 2015). Farmers presented primarily production-focused arguments when discussing the need to dehorn, the ideal method or age, and when solicited to give their opinion about the use of methods to control the pain. Other authors have also reported that farmers tend to prioritize the production goals over considerations for the animals (Tuyttens et al., 2012; Spooner et al., 2014). For example, pig producers perceive surgical castration without anaesthesia, the most common method, as superior in economic, efficiency and efficacy terms (Tuyttens et al., 2012). In the 17
case of the present study population, these ideals seem to have been pushed by state run extension programs that were integral in helping family farms in the south of Brazil transition to commercial milk production (see discussion in Hötzel and Sneddon, 2013). Our findings indicate that the lack of knowledge regarding the existence of any method to prevent or minimize the pain at dehorning is the primary reason behind the lack of use of such methods among participant farmers. The first evidence of this was the surprised reaction of some respondents when questioned directly about their opinion regarding the use of anaesthesia or postoperative anti-inflammatory medicaments. Indirect evidence of this was also apparent in the farmers' reports that state extension agents, who advised them about dehorning, never mentioned methods for pain control. These reports are consistent with self-reports from extension agents working in this region, who promoted the use of hot iron dehorning but never mentioned pain control to their farmer clients (Hötzel and Sneddon, 2013). Previous work has shown that uptake of anaesthetic and analgesic drugs for veterinary procedures may be motivated by the knowledge about their use and by perceptions regarding animal suffering (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Huxley and Whay, 2006; Becker et al., 2014). For example, Hoe and Ruegg (2006) concluded that the low use of pain control among Wisconsin farmers was related to farmers' lack of knowledge of the existing alternatives. Despite the lack of awareness regarding pain mitigation strategies, our findings also suggest that farmers did show some empathy for their calves during the dehorning procedure, and thus they may be willing to use pain control methods if awareness increases. That said, when challenged with the concept of using pain control medications, some farmers argued that financial constraints would prevent them from using pain mitigation strategies. The view expressed by some farmers that adult cows suffer during dehorning, but not calves, is not supported in studies investigating the effect of age on pain. Recent work has shown 18
that this procedure is painful in young calves (Milligan et al., 2004; Caray et al., 2015) and that this pain is not brief (Neave et al., 2013; Daros et al., 2014). There are some explanations for this finding. For example, some farmers may not spend enough time watching the calves after dehorning and thus fail to observe any behavioural signs of pain, or they may not be well acquainted with behavioural signs of pain. The reliance by many participants on the observation that at least some calves eat soon after the procedure may have also resulted in many concluding that the procedure did not cause (too much) pain. Alternatively, this attitude may reflect an attempt to ease the conflict between the perceived advantages of dehorning and the discomfort of making their calves suffer with pain. This disconnect between the beliefs and practices of farmers can be explained by the theory of cognitive dissonance; when an individual experiences a conflict between his beliefs, attitudes or behaviour, he/she is in a state of cognitive dissonance; i.e., there is an inconsistency (dissonance) between what the subject knows or believes, and what he/she does (Festinger, 1957). By saying that the calves suffer but not so much, farmers may alleviate their cognitive dissonance, thus avoiding the need to deal with this internal conflict. With the exception of one participant, all others preferred the hot iron method for dehorning, confirming its generalized use in the region (Hötzel et al., 2014). This method appears to be the most preferred method globally, as identified in several surveys (Fulwider et al., 2008; Vasseur et al., 2010; Gottardo et al., 2011; Bergman et al., 2014; Hötzel et al., 2014; Kling-Eveillard et al., 2015). The issue of whether hot iron dehorning is the most humane method has received considerable attention in the literature, with some experts recommending caustic paste (Duffield, 2008) while others advocate for hot iron dehorning (Stafford and Mellor, 2011). Also, others have shown that farmers that use hot iron dehorning find this method to be the least painful and most effective (e.g., Kling-Eveillard et al., 2015). Although many 19
participants in the current study were aware of the existence of the caustic paste but had no personal experience, they perceived it as inadequate; some considered it more painful than the hot iron because of its corrosive nature, and most rejected it because of the risk of injuring the calves. Though there is indeed a real risk of the paste draining and reaching other parts animal body, causing injuries, this risk can be managed (Stafford and Mellor, 2011). However, in the current study farmers seem to base their beliefs regarding caustic paste on the recommendations provided by extension agents and a few experiences reported by peers; these reports of bad experiences by their peers were clearly important in their decision making process of which method to employ. Another factor that may have contributed to the widespread acceptance of the practice of dehorning is the aesthetic value attributed to polled animals. The importance of aesthetic issues for the farmers have been discussed by Seyferth (1993), Burton (2004) and Cole (2011). The fact that participant farmers appeared to value cows without horns may be underpinned by the concept referred to by Seyferth (1993) in reference to farmers of European origin as those of this study; the author described how farmers of European descent in the south of Brazil express an ethic of tidiness and care for the land surrounding the preparation of the soil and care of animals as conditions that categorize them as good peasants. Burton (2004) also used the term tidiness to refer to the general appearance of the farm, which is perceived by traditional farmers as an indicator of care. For farmers interviewed in a survey about happy meat (Cole, 2011), the aesthetic factor of the animals was viewed as especially important because some consumers of meat relate it with healthy and happy animals. However, it seems that depending on the local traditions farmers appear to prefer cows with or without horns. For instance, in contrast to the present study, some German farmers that defy modernization intentionally do not dehorn their 20
cattle as a way to express their reluctance to sacrifice their traditions for economic gain (KlingEveillard et al., 2009). In the same way, some Italian farmers reported keeping horns for aesthetic motivations, like preservation of integrity, beauty and natural appearance of the horned cows (Gottardo et al., 2011). The primacy of a production-focused model of dairy production identified in this study as an important contextual factor underlying the need to dehorn calves, the methods used, and the lack of use of pain control, contrasts with the ideals of urban citizens (Robbins et al., 2015). The public shows concerns with ethical issues of production, particularly with regards to animal welfare (Marie, 2006). In order to remain sustainable, the dairy cattle industry, including all stakeholders, may need to reconsider some husbandry practices and its overall goals. The introduction of the practice of dehorning and certain beliefs associated with it, including the ignorance regarding the existing methods to mitigate the pain, appear to stem from the power held by the extension agents over the farmers. Changing the views and practices of farmers regarding dehorning of calves strongly depends on changing the views and behaviours of those that advise them; this could be achieved through education and animal welfare legislation (see Hötzel and Sneddon, 2013; Robbins et al., 2015). Moreover, changing views and practices regarding dehorning may depend on major changes in the understanding of livestock production goals. As discussed previously (Hötzel, 2014; von Keyserlingk and Hötzel, 2015), farmers' decision-making is influenced by production-oriented public policies and market pressures, most times at the expense of animal welfare and sustainable agriculture goals.
21
CONCLUSIONS The practice of dehorning dairy calves was an integral component of the modernization of Brazilian agriculture that began in the 1970's and has culminated in this country now ranking among the major global producers and exporters of animal protein. However, some of the methods used by farmers are not aligned with current scientific knowledge of pain, pain mitigation and the social demand for methods that avoid animal suffering. The failure of farmers that participated in this study to mitigate pain associated to dehorning appears to be a consequence of lack of awareness of the existing methods available that address this issue. Considering the role of dairy advisors in the introduction of technological changes in the region, and farmers' general positive attitudes towards avoiding unnecessary pain, changing practices on farms will require changing the views and behaviours of those that advise the farmers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the MCT/CNPq/CT-Agronegócio/MAPA-SDC 40/2008, Proc. 505862/2008-5. C. S. Cardoso and M. J. Hötzel were funded by CNPq / (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brazil). M. A. G. von Keyserlingk thanks CNPq's Science Without Borders program for the funding provided to facilitate her stay in Brazil through Grant N°. 400850/2013-3.
REFERENCES AVMA, 2014. Literature review on the welfare implications of the dehorning and disbudding of cattle. American Veterinary Medical Association,
22
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/Welfare-Implications-ofDehorning-and-Disbudding-Cattle.aspx. Accessed: 16 October 2015. Balcão LF, Longo C, Costa JHC, Uller-Gómez C, Machado Filho LCP and Hötzel MJ Characterization of smallholding dairy farms in southern Brazil. Animal Production Science in press. Becker, J., Reist, M., Steiner, A., 2014. Factors influencing the attitudes of cattle veterinarians, farmers, and claw trimmers towards the pain associated with the treatment of sole ulcers and the sensitivity to pain of dairy cows. Vet. J. 200, 38-43. Bergman, M.A., Richert, R.M., Cicconi-Hogan, K.M., Gamroth, M.J., Schukken, Y.H., Stiglbauer, K.E., Ruegg, P.L., 2014. Comparison of selected animal observations and management practices used to assess welfare of calves and adult dairy cows on organic and conventional dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 97, 4269-4280. Brasil, 2011. IN n° 46, de 6 de outubro de 2011. Estabelece o Regulamento Técnico para os Sistemas Orgânicos de Produção Animal e Vegetal. Ministério da Agricultura Pecuária e Abastecimento, Brasília. Burton, R.J.F., 2004. Seeing through the 'good farmer's' eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of 'productivist' behaviour. Soc. Ruralis 44, 195-+. Caray, D., de Boyer des Roches, A., Frouja, S., Andanson, S., Veissier, I., 2015. Hot-iron disbudding: stress responses and behavior of 1- and 4-week-old calves receiving antiinflammatory analgesia without or with sedation using xylazine. Livest. Sci. 179, 22-28.. CFMV (Conselho Federal de Medicina Veterinária). Resolução Nº 877, de 15 de fevereiro de 2008. Dispõe sobre os procedimentos cirúrgicos em animais de produção e silvestres. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília. 23
Chaddad, F.R., Jank, M.S., 2006. The evolution of agricultural policies and agribusiness development in Brazil. Choices 21, 85-90. Cole, M., 2011. From "Animal Machines" to "Happy Meat"? Foucault's ideas of disciplinary and pastoral power applied to "Animal-Centred" welfare discourse. Animals 1, 83-101. Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 2007. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California. Costa JHC, Hötzel MJ, Longo C and Balcão LF 2013. A survey of management practices that influence production and welfare of dairy cattle on family farms in southern Brazil. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 307-317. Cozzi, G., Gottardo, F., Brscic, M., Contiero, B., Irrgang, N., Knierim, U., Pentelescu, O., Windig, J.J., Mirabito, L., Eveillard, F.K., Dockes, A.C., Veissier, I., Velarde, A., Fuentes, C., Dalmau, A., Winckler, C., 2015. Dehorning of cattle in the EU Member States: A quantitative survey of the current practices. Livest. Sci. 179, 4-11. Daros, R.R., Costa, J.H.C., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Hötzel, M.J., Weary, D.M., 2014. Separation from the dam causes negative judgement bias in dairy calves. PLoS ONE 9, e98429. Duffield, T.F., 2008. Current data on dehorning calves. 41st Annual Convention of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners. American Association of Bovine Practitioners, Auburn, AL., pp. 25–28. Faulkner, P.M., Weary, D.M., 2000. Reducing pain after dehorning in dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2037–2041. Festinger, L.A., 1957. Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
24
Fredriksen, B., Johnsen, A.M.S., Skuterud, E., 2011. Consumer attitudes towards castration of piglets and alternatives to surgical castration. Res. Vet. Sci. 90, 352-357. Fulwider, W.K., Grandin, T., Rollin, B.E., Engle, T.E., Dalsted, N.L., Lamm, W.D., 2008. Survey of dairy management practices on one hundred thirteen north central and northeastern united states dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 91, 1686-1692. Gottardo, F., Nalon, E., Contiero, B., Normando, S., Dalvit, P., Cozzi, G., 2011. The dehorning of dairy calves: Practices and opinions of 639 farmers. J. Dairy Sci. 94, 5724-5734. Hewson, C.J., Dohoo, I.R., Lemke, K.A., Barkema, H.W., 2007. Factors affecting Canadian veterinarians' use of analgesics when dehorning beef and dairy calves. Can. Vet. Journal-Rev. Vet. Can. 48, 1129-1136. Hoe, F.G.H., Ruegg, P.L., 2006. Opinions and practices of Wisconsin dairy producers about biosecurity and animal well-being. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 2297-2308. Hötzel, M.J., 2014. Improving farm animal welfare: is evolution or revolution needed in production systems? In: Appleby, M.C., Weary, D.M., Sandoe, P. (Eds.), Dilemmas in Animal Welfare. CABI, Oxfordshire, UK, pp. 67-84. Hötzel, M.J., Longo, C., Balcão, L.F., Cardoso, C.S., Costa, J.H.C., 2014. A survey of management practices that influence performance and welfare of dairy calves reared in Southern Brazil. PLoS ONE 9, e114995. Hötzel, M.J., Sneddon, J.N., 2013. The role of extensionists in Santa Catarina, Brazil, in the adoption and rejection of providing pain relief to calves for dehorning. J. Dairy Sci. 96, 15351548. Huxley, J.N., Whay, H.R., 2006. Current attitudes of cattle practitioners to pain and the use of analgesics in cattle. Vet. Rec. 159, 662-+. 25
IBGE, 2009. Censo Agropecuário. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/agropecuaria/censoagro/. Accessed: 15 February 2016. IBGE, 2006. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica, Censo Agropecuário 2006. http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/agropecuaria/censoagro/2006/. Accessed: 15 October 2015. ICEPA, 2014. Síntese anual da agricultura de Santa Catarina, 2013-2014. Epagri/Cepa, Florianópolis, SC. Kling-Eveillard, F., Irrgang, N., Knierim, U., Gottardo, F., Ricci, R., Dockès, A.-C., 2009. Report on farmers' attitude towards the practice of dehorning. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/docs/calves_alcasde_D-2-1-2.pdf. Kling-Eveillard, F., Knierim, U., Irrgang, N., Gottardo, F., Ricci, R., Dockès, A.C., 2015. Attitudes of farmers towards cattle dehorning. Livest. Sci. 179, 12-21. Knierim, U., Irrgang, N., Roth, B.A., 2015. To be or not to be horned-Consequences in cattle. Livest. Sci. 179, 29-37. Marie, M., 2006. Ethics: The new challenge for animal agriculture. Livest. Sci. 103, 203-207. Martinelli, L.A., Naylor, R., Vitousek, P.M., Moutinho, P., 2010. Agriculture in Brazil: impacts, costs, and opportunities for a sustainable future. Curr. Op. Envir. Sust. 2, 431-438. Menke, C., Peer, M., Schneider, C., Spengler, A., Waiblinger, S., 2015. Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livest. Sci. 179, 38-46. Miele, M., Veissier, I., Evans, A., Botreau, R., 2011. Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Anim. Welf. 20, 103-117. 26
Milligan, B.N., Duffield, T., Lissemore, K., 2004. The utility of ketoprofen for alleviating pain following dehorning in young dairy calves. Can. Vet. Journal-Rev. Vet. Can. 45, 140-143. Minayo, M.C.S., 2008. O desafio do conhecimento. Hucitec, São Paulo. Neave, H.W., Daros, R.R., Costa, J.H.C., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., weary, D.M., 2013. Pain and pessimism: Dairy calves exhibit negative judgement bias following hot-iron disbudding. PLoS ONE 8, e80556. Robbins, J.A., Weary, D.M., Schuppli, C.A., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2015. Stakeholder views on treating pain due to dehorning dairy calves. Anim. Welf. in press. Schneider, S., Niederle, P.A., 2010. Resistance strategies and diversification of rural livelihoods: the construction of autonomy among Brazilian family farmers. J. Peas. Studies 37, 379-405. Seyferth, G., 1993. Identidade camponesa e identidade étnica (um estudo de caso). Anuário Antropológico/91. Tempo Brasileiro, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 31-63. Spooner, J.M., Schuppli, C.A., Fraser, D., 2014. Attitudes of Canadian pig producers toward animal welfare. J. Agric. Envir. Ethics, 27, 569–589. Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., 2011. Addressing the pain associated with disbudding and dehorning in cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 135, 226-231. Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., 2005. Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. The Veterinary Journal 169, 337–349. Stilwell G, G., Lima, M.S., Broom, D.M., 2008. Comparing the effect of three different disbudding methods on behaviour and plasma cortisol of calves. Rev Port Cienc Vet 102, 281-288.
27
Stock, M.L., Baldridge, S.L., Griffin, D., Coetzee, J.F., 2013. Bovine dehorning assessing pain and providing analgesic management. Vet. Clin. of North Amer.-Food Anim. Pract. 29, 103+. Thomsen, P.T., Anneberg, I., Herskin, M.S., 2012. Differences in attitudes of farmers and veterinarians towards pain in dairy cows. Vet. J. 194, 94-97. Tuyttens, F.A.M., Vanhonacker, F., Verhille, B., De Brabander, D., Verbeke, W., 2012. Pig producer attitude towards surgical castration of piglets without anaesthesia versus alternative strategies. Res. Vet. Sci. 92, 524-530. USDA, 2010. Dairy 2007, Heifer Calf Health and Management Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations. In: Agriculture, USDA (Ed.). United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO. Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F.A.M., 2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livest. Sci. 116, 126-136. Vasseur, E., Borderas, F., Cue, R.I., Lefebvre, D., Pellerin, D., Rushen, J., Wade, K.M., de Passille, A.M., 2010. A survey of dairy calf management practices in Canada that affect animal welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 93, 1307-1315. von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Hötzel, M.J., 2015. The ticking clock: Addressing farm animal welfare in emerging countries. J. Agric. Envir. Ethics 28, 179-195. Windig, J.J., Cozzi, G., Vessier, I., 2015. Introduction to the special issue on alternatives for cattle dehorning. Livest. Sci. 179, 1-3. Wikman, I., Hokkanen, A.H., Pastell, M., Kauppinen, T., Valros, A., Hanninen, L., 2013. Dairy producer attitudes to pain in cattle in relation to disbudding calves. J. Dairy Sci. 96, 68946903. 28
Highlights:
Farmers have positive attitudes towards dehorning calves.
Farmers perceive dehorning as a painful experience for the calves.
Lack of knowledge on available methods for pain mitigation is a barrier to changing practice.
Changing dehorning practices may require changes in farm advisors' attitudes.
29
PII: DOI: Reference:
S1871-1413(16)30033-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.02.010 LIVSCI2951
To appear in: Livestock Science Received date: 31 October 2015 Revised date: 23 February 2016 Accepted date: 26 February 2016 Cite this article as: Clarissa Silva Cardoso, Marina A.G. von Keyserlingk and Maria José Hötzel, Trading off animal welfare and production goals: Brazilian dairy farmers' perspectives on calf dehorning, Livestock Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.02.010 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Trading off animal welfare and production goals: Brazilian dairy farmers' perspectives on calf dehorning
Clarissa Silva Cardoso1, Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk2, Maria José Hötzel1* [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
1
Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-Estar Animal, Departamento de Zootecnia e
Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil; 2
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada * Corresponding author: Maria José Hötzel ([email protected])
ABSTRACT Dehorning of young calves is a routine management practice used on many dairy farms around the world. Dehorning is done to minimize injuries to stockpersons and other cattle. Most stakeholders not associated with the dairy industry frequently criticize this procedure, arguing that it is painful for the animal, which is supported by scientific evidence. Although research has shown that the pain associated with dehorning can be mitigated through the use of pharmacological tools, many farmers still routinely dehorn their calves without the use of pain mitigation. To elicit views regarding dehorning practices used on calves, including evaluating the importance of this procedure in the overall management of the herd, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 37 farmers located in southern Brazil. Participants recognized 1
dehorning as a required management practice but also identified it as a painful procedure, showing empathy for the animals. However, participants appeared to trade off production and welfare goals, frequently stating that high production was more important than the welfare of calves as justification for not using pain mitigation when dehorning. The lack of knowledge regarding means to mitigate pain associated with dehorning was identified as a primary barrier preventing the routine adoption of pain mitigation strategies. It was clear that advisors from public and private extension programs were the primary source of knowledge on dehorning. This work indicates the urgent need for extension efforts to include information on science based best practices targeted at dairy producers and dairy industry professionals advising producers regarding dehorning of dairy calves.
Keywords: attitudes; dairy production; ethics; horns; pain
INTRODUCTION Around the world, most dairy calves are dehorned within the first few months of life. This practice is recommended (AVMA, 2014) to ensure the safety of handlers and to reduce aggression among conspecifics (view also discussion in Knierim et al., 2015). However, increasing evidence suggests that the majority of people not involved in dairy production tend to reject practices they perceive to cause pain to animals (Vanhonacker et al., 2008; Fredriksen et al., 2011; Miele et al., 2011; Robbins et al., 2015). Disbudding is the destruction of the cells of the horn bud (AVMA, 2014) and normally takes place when the horn bud is approximately 5 to 10 mm (Stafford and Mellor, 2005). In 2
contrast, dehorning refers to the removal of the horns after they have formed and attachment to the skull has taken place, at approximately 8 wks of age (AVMA, 2014). The most common procedures used to destroy the horn bud cells involve cauterization through hot or electric iron (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2009; Vasseur et al., 2010; Gottardo et al., 2011: Stock et al., 2013). Use of caustic paste to chemically destroy the horn tissue is less common (9% operations, USDA, 2010), but is also painful (Stilwell et al., 2008). Around the world the usual method to disbud calves is the hot iron. As it is well established that cautery disbudding is a painful procedure (reviewed by Stafford and Mellor, 2011), strategies have been developed to mitigate these effects. Local anaesthetics block the cornual nerve, reducing the pain at the moment of the procedure, but this does not address post operative pain (Faulkner and Weary, 2000). Regardless of method used to disbud, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that post operative analgesia (e.g. NSAIDs) can help control the pain in the hours following the procedure, particularly when used in association with local anaesthetics (Stafford and Mellor, 2011; Stock et al., 2013). Globally there is growing recognition amongst professional organizations that pain mitigation should be used when disbudding or dehorning (e.g. AVMA, 2014). In Brazil, the Federal Council of Veterinarians recommends that anesthesia be used when disbudding (up to 8 weeks of age) and, dehorning (up to 6 months of age). However, for animals greater than 6 months that are dehorning both a sedative and local anesthesia must be used (CFMV, 2008). Recommendations for organic production frequently vary from that of conventional systems; for example, in Brazil dehorning is not permitted by the organic production legislation, and disbudding is only permitted "when necessary", and must be done at an "appropriate age" to "reduce the painful process" (Brasil, 2011). Despite these scientific advances, the adoption of dehorning practices 3
that incorporate pain mitigation remains slow within the farming communities around the world (USDA, 2010; Vasseur et al., 2010; Hötzel et al., 2014; Cozzi et al., 2015). There has been a growing interest in understanding the views and knowledge of different stakeholders working within the dairy industry on dehorning practices (e.g., farmers: Gottardo et al., 2011; Wikman et al., 2013; Kling-Eveillard et al., 2015; veterinarians and dairy consultants: Hewson et al., 2007; Thomsen et al., 2012; Hötzel and Sneddon, 2013). These studies identified different factors associated with low adoption of dehorning practices that incorporate pain mitigation, including herd size, type of production, perceptions regarding cost, individual sensibility toward pain, and belief that farmers will neither adopt the practices nor would they pay for them. The role of farm advisors in the promotion (or not) of proven best practices for on farm use has also received some interest. For instance, extension agents (e.g. agronomists, agricultural technicians and veterinarians) of southern Brazil believe that the pain associated with disbudding and dehorning is brief and of little consequence to calves, thus promoting the fact that pain mitigation is not necessary (Hötzel and Sneddon, 2013). Robbins et al. (2015), working with a wider group of primarily North American dairy industry stakeholders (dairy producers, veterinarians, students and researchers) also reported similar arguments by those arguing against the use of pain mitigation. These studies suggest that specific cultural and traditional factors may influence the knowledge, perceptions and views of stakeholders that underlie the decisions regarding dehorning. Therefore, the aims of this study were to firstly investigate the views of farmers in southern Brazil regarding dehorning dairy calves, including their preferred method of dehorning and the pain associated with this practice and, secondly, to provide insights into potential solutions that may increase the use of pain mitigation while dehorning. 4
METHODOLOGY This study used a qualitative approach and consisted of in-depth interviews. Data collection was based on the methodology proposed by Corbin and Strauss (2007) and Minayo (2008). This research was approved by the Ethics Committee of Research with Human Beings of Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil (1828/2011). Thirty-one farms were visited in 16 municipalities of the northwest and southeast of Santa Catarina (located between 25°57'41''S and 29°23'55''S), Brazil. Together, these two regions account for 79.3% of the milk produced in the state (ICEPA, 2014). Furthermore, Santa Catarina is the fastest growing dairy state in Brazil in the last 10 years (IBGE, 2006). Small family farms produce 80% of the milk in Brazil and 85% of the milk in the study region (IBGE, 2009). Following Article 4 of the Land Act established by Law n. 4504 as of November 30, 2004, farms in Santa Catarina up to 72 ha in area are considered "family farms". The last national census estimated the average herd size in the state at 24 cows (IBGE, 2009), which is supported by recent surveys (Costa et al., 2013; Hötzel et al., 2014). As discussed by Balcão et al. (in press), farmers in the region responded to the drive for modernization that began approximately five decades ago, resulting in changes focused primarily on management and infrastructure (e.g. dairy cows' feeding strategies, milking equipment, herd size and total milk production) but not farm size. Recruitment was based on two criteria, with the same number of the farms in each group: 1) milk production was the main economic activity, and 2) existence of a fully functional system to supply drinking water to cows on pasture. The latter criterion was used to infer ongoing investment in dairy production and some concern for the welfare of cows. 5
Standard practice in qualitative research determines that an adequate number of interviews be undertaken such that no new information arises from additional interviews (Robson, 1993). In the present study, data saturation was reached at 37 interviews, which were undertaken on 14 farms with individual farmers (11 men and 9 women), 14 farms with the husband and wife together, and 3 farms with the husband and wife, some of their children and other family members. The farms were all family run, i.e. all labour was provided by immediate or closely related family members.
In-depth interviews Participants were invited to respond to an open-ended, semi-structured interview script (Minayo, 2004). Initial questions covered demographic information. All subsequent questions sought to capture the farmer's views and knowledge about dehorning and the reasons underlying these views, as well as their perceptions regarding the pain felt by calves. After 25 interviews it became apparent that, unless solicited, participants did not comment on possible strategies that could be used to mitigate the pain associated with dehorning. We therefore included an additional open-ended question specifically about this issue, where we invited participants to discuss the need for these methods and which methods they thought were available. All interviews were done by the same interviewer (the first author) to ensure consistency, and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by the first author. Numbers were assigned to each participant and appear with each quotation. Quotes were translated to English by the first and last author. Analysis of the interviews was done according to the methodology proposed by Minayo (2008) and Corbin and Strauss (2007). Briefly, this involved the transcribed text being
6
exhaustively read and coded into themes according to the key aspects of the interview script. After discussions the authors reached the final analysis.
RESULTS Participant and farm information The dairy farms visited had been in operation on average 17 years (range 5-35 years), were on average 28 ha in size, and had on average 16 (range 8-36) lactating cows. On average 5 people lived on each farm (range 2-9), and the average age of the participants varied, with the adult women being on average 42 years old (range 25-60 years), and the adult men 47 years old (range 31-66 years). Approximately half of the farmers had 1 to 4 years of primary school education, whereas the other half had at least some high school education, one had an undergraduate degree and one a post graduate degree. Farmers were assisted by state funded extension agents (e.g. agronomists, agricultural technicians and veterinarians) and by consultants associated with the dairy industry. In this study we will use the term 'dehorning' to include both disbudding and dehorning. Our reason for doing so was because is was not clear the exact age that the farmers did the procedure, but many clearly indicated that they dehorned their calves when they were more than two months of age. Dehorning of calves was a routine practice performed on all farms; participants stated that all replacement heifers and, in many cases, all bull calves were dehorned. With the exception of one farmer who disbudded his calves using caustic paste, all others used the hot iron (heated using fire) or electric iron (the difference between the electric and the hot iron is that the first keeps a constant temperature, whereas with the hot iron farmers need to be reheated in the fire). Farmers varied in their responses when questioned at what age calves were 7
dehorned; three of them dehorned their calves when they were 30 days old, six farmers completed this task when the calves were 60 days old, and nine farmers indicated that they only dehorned their calves when the calves were greater than 60 days of age. Five farmers admitted not knowing the age of the calves but rather based their decision on vague criteria such as when the horns appear and three others when calves are young. One participant reported using a sedative when dehorning, but no participant made use of anaesthetics or post-operative antiinflammatory drugs.
Farmers' views regarding the effect of dehorning on the production system Avoiding aggression among adult animals was the primary reason given by the participants for dehorning. Participants were unanimous in stating that the horns hinder management because they increase the level of aggression between animals [e.g., It needs to be done because later it is worse (Farmer 16, female); (...) without the horns they do not hurt each other (Farmer 28, male)]. Participants also commented that increased aggression is bad for milk production as cows can hurt their udders (or surrounding area), or cause abortions. A number of participants stated that the problem of intra-herd aggression had risen as herd size has increased in recent years. Some participants also stated that the adoption of rotational grazing systems has increased the problem of aggression within their herds. Participants explained that implementation of the rotational system exacerbates the dominance interactions, given that this system requires a previous pasture/paddock to be divided into smaller sections, thus decreasing space availability per animal. A number of the participants stated that the milking parlour and general handling facilities, including the feeding areas, were all designed for cows without horns. As one participant stated ...horned cows cannot fit in the milking 8
parlours (...) (Farmer 24, male). The only advantage ascribed to horns was limited to participants referring to the improved ability to restrain the cows by their horns to facilitate the milking procedure. It was apparent through the discussions that many of the participants adopted a pragmatic approach when deciding the age at which dehorning should take place and the time of year. With regards to the age of the calves, they spoke of having to use less force to retrain animals while doing the procedure, It must be done when she's young, it is much easier to hold her and do it [referring to dehorning] (Farmer 7, female), or the need to be able to see the horn, She can't be too young, because then there is no sign of the horn (Farmer 29, male). One participant, when informed by the interviewer that calves could be dehorned in the first few weeks of age (see Stafford and Mellor, 2011), questioned the information: Then it is not possible, she's far too young. You need to wait until she grows and you can see the tip of the horn (Farmer 28, male). Some farmers stated that they preferred to dehorn when the temperature is cooler as this would avoid flies at the wound, and thus in some cases (depending on what time of year the calf was born) they justified dehorning at an older age.
Farmers' views regarding the effect of dehorning on the animals Through their statements, farmers revealed their perceptions regarding the effect of dehorning on the calves. Many farmers mentioned that the dehorning procedure causes pain, or that calves suffer when dehorned, and that they feel pity of these animals [e.g., (...) that hurts like crazy, burning the skin (...) I always feel pity for the animals, they open their mouth like crazy, imagine the flesh burning! (Farmer 18, male)]. Indeed some farmers anthropomorphized the pain of dehorning and comparing it with human pain, as shown in the following statements: 9
The animals are just like us, it must hurt (Farmer 17, male) Yes, they must feel [pain], because the only difference between an animal and a person, in my view, is the way they walk (...) (Farmer 32, male) Most of the participating farmers justified their choice of dehorning method in terms of reducing the amount of pain associated with dehorning. However, the perception about which method would be the least painful varied: some considered the hot iron to cause the least amount of pain, while others stated that the electric iron was the most humane. Despite 19 of the 37 participants having knowledge about caustic paste dehorning, only one participant stated that he utilized the caustic paste, arguing that this method is the least painful. In contrast, 13 participants expressed negative beliefs about caustic paste dehorning, with many stating that it was associated with the risk of hurting animals. Specific examples included comments on the corrosive nature of the paste and the danger of the paste dripping to other parts of the animal's body [e.g., I'm not much of a fan of this paste (...) if you do not take care it may drain and blind the heifer; if you use too much it can corrode too much (Farmer 2, male)], and that there was an increased risk of the horns growing in the future. Interestingly, despite most admitting never having used caustic paste on their own farms, they frequently referred to reports of bad experiences that had taken place on other farms: I never used it... if others say it is not recommended, then one doesn't even try (Farmer 19, male). Other participants expressed scant knowledge about the caustic paste: Now there is another method done with an ointment, but I don't really know how it is (Farmer 28, male). Many participating farmers justified their choice of dehorning calves when they are young in terms of reducing the pain felt by the animals. The majority of participants indicated that when the animals are young they have less strength, they suffer less, or it is not as painful 10
[as in older animals] (Farmer 14, male). However, it should be noted that calves of up to eight months old were included in the category young by many of the participants. Many of the participants made reference to signs of pain expressed by calves (e.g., vocalizations, kicking and jumping) during the dehorning procedure, while others described the calves as experiencing dizziness, fever, head shaking and lowering the ear after the procedure. There were different views among participants regarding the duration of the pain felt by the calf; some reported signs of pain for some days after the procedure, while others indicated that the pain was brief and restricted to the moment of the procedure, or possibly for a few hours after dehorning. They [the calves] get traumatized (...) for some days, and then they forget (Farmer 5, female) She [the calf] gets shy for some days, because they are sensitive (Farmer 8, male) After she [the calf] gets up, she needs help because she is dizzy, so she walks and keeps quiet and then she's eating the grass or something like that (...) in the [following days] they eat normally, ears are normal (Farmer 15, female) One participant, despite recognizing the practice of dehorning as painful, traded off the immediate pain for future benefits: Of course, there is suffering, but in return in future the cows will not get hurt (Farmer 27, male). Interestingly there were also negative views towards the animals with horns and also towards the horns per se. For example, some farmers referred to the cows with horns using terms such as bandits, bad, bossy, preponderate, cocky, they have power in the horns and the horn is the worst crap. These views were in some cases extremely strong, as some farmers specifically stated that they did not feel any pity towards dehorning adult cows, or culling them from the herd: 11
I don't pity dehorning the 'bossy' cows because they hurt the others (...) (Farmer 23, female) The bad one, she goes to the butcher... a cow that is mad, that wants to horn, that one goes to the butcher (Farmer 11, female). Another theme that came up during the interviews was an aesthetic sense related to the horns: cows with horns were frequently referred to by farmers as being ugly, horrible and the fact that they had horns was viewed as a sign of untidiness. In contrast, cows without horns were seen as more beautiful [e.g., With horns, they are ugly (Farmer 33, male)], and more docile [e.g., Oh, they get much more docile, you know... (Farmer 10, female)].
Farmers' views regarding the use of medicaments to prevent or reduce the pain caused by dehorning One of the aims of this study was to solicit farmers' views on the use of methods to control the pain caused by dehorning. Although the majority of the participants reported applying grease, fat or healing sprays to prevent flies and cool the wounded area, only five farmers talked spontaneously about the use of medicaments to control the pain. In the last 12 interviews participants were probed on this topic, because none of the previous interviewees had mentioned the issue, and it became evident that there was little knowledge in this group of participants regarding pain mitigation strategies. For example, one farmer stated, No, I never heard of it, not around here [about anaesthesia] (Farmer 26, male); and another one, Anaesthesia? I never thought of it. I don't know if you can use a drug to avoid the pain of dehorning (Farmer 33, male). Of the 17 farmers that talked about the use of pharmacological tools to control the pain associated with dehorning, 11 did not consider it necessary [e.g., I don't think it's necessary 12
(Farmer 33, male)]. In their assessment, the suffering caused by dehorning was brief and, therefore, pain mitigation was not warranted. Participants frequently compared young heifers and old cows' pain at dehorning in their justification that younger animals do not feel pain to the same extent as older animals, for example: For the little ones there's no need, because they practically do not feel... (Farmer 34, female) In the young ones there is no need because they do not suffer as much as the old cattle (Farmer 4, male) There is no need, it is only a bit burn [referring to the feeling of burning]. Thus they do not suffer much, but just a bit. The young ones, they do not even bleed. Only in the old ones it is necessary (Farmer 28, male) However, 5 farmers agreed with the need to use medicaments to control the pain associated with dehorning: I would use it (Farmer 33, female) Yes, in that case it would be good to do it (Farmer 31, male) If that makes the animal not to feel pain, it would be a good idea (Farmer 29, male) Another farmer demonstrated his lack of knowledge to support his choice, by saying, Yes, if there were something to avoid making the animal suffer, because the least suffering... but not general anaesthesia to make the animal sleep, that is an exaggeration (Farmer 32, male). Several farmers raised the issue of cost when confronted with the topic of using drugs to control the pain. One individual stated: ...you invest a lot, and then you do not have return (Farmer 36, male) and, No ... it's an extra cost; it is an extra cost over again, and we always have to lower costs, otherwise... (Farmer 35, female). The issue of keeping costs low was presented as matter-of-fact by one farmer, when asked why she thought the veterinarian did not offer to use 13
anaesthesia to dehorn their calves she responded: Because we would have to pay for the anaesthesia, and they want to make it cheaper for us, I think that's why (Farmer 34, female).
The introduction of the practice of dehorning in the region Although this was not an objective of the study, the interviews brought forward an interesting account of the introduction of dehorning in the region that may explain the knowledge and attitudes of farmers towards the issue. According to the farmers, extension agents and dairy consultants introduced the practice of dehorning in the region approximately two decades ago [e.g., It started maybe 15 years ago... (Farmer 35, female)]. It was one change within a myriad of changes that took place when new techniques and practices were introduced by private and government programs that were aimed to professionalize milk production in the region: We started dehorning about ten years ago, after they founded the cooperative and we started going to courses and specializing more in milk production (Farmer 15, female). Public extension agents and advisors from the dairies spread information about the issue through farm visits, lectures and courses where, according to reports from the participant farmers, they explained about the need to dehorn the dairy cattle [e.g., …a professor came here and said we had to disbud (Farmer 27, male); …a veterinarian said that with horns you don't get milk. Without horns you get more milk (Farmer 33, male)]. Before that, the procedure was not used in the region [e.g., …the tradition of dehorning did not exist in the region (Farmer 24, male)]. At that time extension agents recommended hot iron as the best option [e.g., They taught us with the hot iron (Farmer 26, male)], and advised against the caustic paste [e.g., …he [the extensionist] said that the best way to do it is with the hot iron, because he said that there was a
14
product to put over the horn but he did no recommend it because it may drain into the eye [of the calf] and she could go blind (Farmer 19, male)]. Although the extension agents and dairy consultants appeared to send a clear message regarding the need to dehorn, there appeared to be some confusion regarding the age at which calves should be dehorned. For instance one participant stated: The extensionist said we should do it when the calf is young, but he did not say what age (Farmer 28, male). Some participants associated the introduction of dehorning with advancement or modernization of milk production [e.g., Because, in fact, knowledge came to us, right! Before that we did not have the knowledge (...) (Farmer 26, male)]. It was also clear that farmers considered the new technique an advancement that improved the management and the quality of life of the cows and the farmer [e.g., Oh, now they became much more docile... we have one with horns, and every now and then one is hurt (Farmer 10, female); Afterwards I realized that it is better to deal with them without the horns (Farmer 8, male)]. For the current generation of farmers dehorning is accepted as a tradition [e.g., Everyone that produces milk dehorns (Farmer 26, male)], and not dehorning is not considered an option, If I had to work today with cows with horns I would stop, I think... (...) we are so used to it now, right... (Farmer 32, male). However, there was also recognition that change was not easy for everyone. For instance, when extension agents started recommending the dehorning, the former generation did not receive it well [e.g., …they thought “my God, it is absurd to dehorn the animals” (Farmer 31, male)], and according to some participants, some of them refused to dehorn their animals. The fact that acceptance of the practice was gradual was expressed in reports like, Earlier, we felt uneasy... it felt a bit odd... (Farmer 27, male) or, Talking about dehorning used to be difficult (Farmer 31, male). 15
DISCUSSION Dehorning was an established practice on all participating farms, but it is a practice that farmers described as a relatively recent innovation. Farmers viewed dehorning as positive and even necessary for the operation of the system, and considered it a necessary component for advancement or modernization of their production systems. Despite acknowledging that dehorning was painful, the participants in this study had on average very little knowledge that strategies exist that control the pain associated with dehorning. However, regardless of whether they were aware of the benefits associated with using pain mitigation strategies (or not), most justified the practice of dehorning based on benefits associated with managing adult cattle that had been dehorned. For instance, farmers justified the need to dehorn their calves based on the existence of milking parlours and feeding systems where cows are provided supplemental feed (e.g., cows with horns would have difficulty accessing the feed), and the use of rotational grazing systems, which reduces the space availability per cow and thus increases aggressive interactions. Participants viewed the introduction of these management practices (that they argued necessitated dehorning) as improvements that needed to be adopted if they were to be an active participant in the technologically based transformation of the Brazilian agricultural sector. This transformation, spearheaded by official state extension programs (Martinelli et al., 2010; Schneider and Niederle, 2010), has taken them from family-based subsistence farming to active participants contributing to commercial agriculture. This change, which began in the 1960's and 1970's, involved significant government investment targeted at improving food safety in urban centres within Brazil. This in turn resulted in a shift within the agricultural communities towards 16
modernization and industrialization of agriculture in the 1990's (Chaddad and Jank, 2006). Collectively these initiatives have contributed to the rapid transformation of agricultural activities traditionally dominated by smallholder family farmers, such as maize and milk (Chaddad and Jank, 2006), that helped Brazil becoming one of the top global producers of food animal products in a relatively short period of time (von Keyserlingk and Hötzel, 2015). Given the Brazilian government's desire for rapid transformation, it was not surprising that according to farmers of this study, state extension agents and dairy consultants presented dehorning as a necessity to align with this goal of modernization. Indeed, farmers' statements show that they incorporated this concept of necessity, going so far as to vehemently denying the feasibility of not dehorning their calves. This view has been also shown in Europe, where German organic farmers also describe dehorning as a practice introduced in the context of industrialization of animal production and some Italian farmers that associate dehorning with a modern farm, in the sense that, a modern cattle farm has dehorned animals (Kling-Eveillard et al., 2015). The introduction of loose housing systems in Europe in the 1960's and 1970's has also been associated with the perception of necessity to use polled animals for dairy production (Windig et al., 2015). However, some argue that housing and management may be improved to accommodate cows with horns (Knierim et al., 2015; Menke et al., 2015). Farmers presented primarily production-focused arguments when discussing the need to dehorn, the ideal method or age, and when solicited to give their opinion about the use of methods to control the pain. Other authors have also reported that farmers tend to prioritize the production goals over considerations for the animals (Tuyttens et al., 2012; Spooner et al., 2014). For example, pig producers perceive surgical castration without anaesthesia, the most common method, as superior in economic, efficiency and efficacy terms (Tuyttens et al., 2012). In the 17
case of the present study population, these ideals seem to have been pushed by state run extension programs that were integral in helping family farms in the south of Brazil transition to commercial milk production (see discussion in Hötzel and Sneddon, 2013). Our findings indicate that the lack of knowledge regarding the existence of any method to prevent or minimize the pain at dehorning is the primary reason behind the lack of use of such methods among participant farmers. The first evidence of this was the surprised reaction of some respondents when questioned directly about their opinion regarding the use of anaesthesia or postoperative anti-inflammatory medicaments. Indirect evidence of this was also apparent in the farmers' reports that state extension agents, who advised them about dehorning, never mentioned methods for pain control. These reports are consistent with self-reports from extension agents working in this region, who promoted the use of hot iron dehorning but never mentioned pain control to their farmer clients (Hötzel and Sneddon, 2013). Previous work has shown that uptake of anaesthetic and analgesic drugs for veterinary procedures may be motivated by the knowledge about their use and by perceptions regarding animal suffering (Hoe and Ruegg, 2006; Huxley and Whay, 2006; Becker et al., 2014). For example, Hoe and Ruegg (2006) concluded that the low use of pain control among Wisconsin farmers was related to farmers' lack of knowledge of the existing alternatives. Despite the lack of awareness regarding pain mitigation strategies, our findings also suggest that farmers did show some empathy for their calves during the dehorning procedure, and thus they may be willing to use pain control methods if awareness increases. That said, when challenged with the concept of using pain control medications, some farmers argued that financial constraints would prevent them from using pain mitigation strategies. The view expressed by some farmers that adult cows suffer during dehorning, but not calves, is not supported in studies investigating the effect of age on pain. Recent work has shown 18
that this procedure is painful in young calves (Milligan et al., 2004; Caray et al., 2015) and that this pain is not brief (Neave et al., 2013; Daros et al., 2014). There are some explanations for this finding. For example, some farmers may not spend enough time watching the calves after dehorning and thus fail to observe any behavioural signs of pain, or they may not be well acquainted with behavioural signs of pain. The reliance by many participants on the observation that at least some calves eat soon after the procedure may have also resulted in many concluding that the procedure did not cause (too much) pain. Alternatively, this attitude may reflect an attempt to ease the conflict between the perceived advantages of dehorning and the discomfort of making their calves suffer with pain. This disconnect between the beliefs and practices of farmers can be explained by the theory of cognitive dissonance; when an individual experiences a conflict between his beliefs, attitudes or behaviour, he/she is in a state of cognitive dissonance; i.e., there is an inconsistency (dissonance) between what the subject knows or believes, and what he/she does (Festinger, 1957). By saying that the calves suffer but not so much, farmers may alleviate their cognitive dissonance, thus avoiding the need to deal with this internal conflict. With the exception of one participant, all others preferred the hot iron method for dehorning, confirming its generalized use in the region (Hötzel et al., 2014). This method appears to be the most preferred method globally, as identified in several surveys (Fulwider et al., 2008; Vasseur et al., 2010; Gottardo et al., 2011; Bergman et al., 2014; Hötzel et al., 2014; Kling-Eveillard et al., 2015). The issue of whether hot iron dehorning is the most humane method has received considerable attention in the literature, with some experts recommending caustic paste (Duffield, 2008) while others advocate for hot iron dehorning (Stafford and Mellor, 2011). Also, others have shown that farmers that use hot iron dehorning find this method to be the least painful and most effective (e.g., Kling-Eveillard et al., 2015). Although many 19
participants in the current study were aware of the existence of the caustic paste but had no personal experience, they perceived it as inadequate; some considered it more painful than the hot iron because of its corrosive nature, and most rejected it because of the risk of injuring the calves. Though there is indeed a real risk of the paste draining and reaching other parts animal body, causing injuries, this risk can be managed (Stafford and Mellor, 2011). However, in the current study farmers seem to base their beliefs regarding caustic paste on the recommendations provided by extension agents and a few experiences reported by peers; these reports of bad experiences by their peers were clearly important in their decision making process of which method to employ. Another factor that may have contributed to the widespread acceptance of the practice of dehorning is the aesthetic value attributed to polled animals. The importance of aesthetic issues for the farmers have been discussed by Seyferth (1993), Burton (2004) and Cole (2011). The fact that participant farmers appeared to value cows without horns may be underpinned by the concept referred to by Seyferth (1993) in reference to farmers of European origin as those of this study; the author described how farmers of European descent in the south of Brazil express an ethic of tidiness and care for the land surrounding the preparation of the soil and care of animals as conditions that categorize them as good peasants. Burton (2004) also used the term tidiness to refer to the general appearance of the farm, which is perceived by traditional farmers as an indicator of care. For farmers interviewed in a survey about happy meat (Cole, 2011), the aesthetic factor of the animals was viewed as especially important because some consumers of meat relate it with healthy and happy animals. However, it seems that depending on the local traditions farmers appear to prefer cows with or without horns. For instance, in contrast to the present study, some German farmers that defy modernization intentionally do not dehorn their 20
cattle as a way to express their reluctance to sacrifice their traditions for economic gain (KlingEveillard et al., 2009). In the same way, some Italian farmers reported keeping horns for aesthetic motivations, like preservation of integrity, beauty and natural appearance of the horned cows (Gottardo et al., 2011). The primacy of a production-focused model of dairy production identified in this study as an important contextual factor underlying the need to dehorn calves, the methods used, and the lack of use of pain control, contrasts with the ideals of urban citizens (Robbins et al., 2015). The public shows concerns with ethical issues of production, particularly with regards to animal welfare (Marie, 2006). In order to remain sustainable, the dairy cattle industry, including all stakeholders, may need to reconsider some husbandry practices and its overall goals. The introduction of the practice of dehorning and certain beliefs associated with it, including the ignorance regarding the existing methods to mitigate the pain, appear to stem from the power held by the extension agents over the farmers. Changing the views and practices of farmers regarding dehorning of calves strongly depends on changing the views and behaviours of those that advise them; this could be achieved through education and animal welfare legislation (see Hötzel and Sneddon, 2013; Robbins et al., 2015). Moreover, changing views and practices regarding dehorning may depend on major changes in the understanding of livestock production goals. As discussed previously (Hötzel, 2014; von Keyserlingk and Hötzel, 2015), farmers' decision-making is influenced by production-oriented public policies and market pressures, most times at the expense of animal welfare and sustainable agriculture goals.
21
CONCLUSIONS The practice of dehorning dairy calves was an integral component of the modernization of Brazilian agriculture that began in the 1970's and has culminated in this country now ranking among the major global producers and exporters of animal protein. However, some of the methods used by farmers are not aligned with current scientific knowledge of pain, pain mitigation and the social demand for methods that avoid animal suffering. The failure of farmers that participated in this study to mitigate pain associated to dehorning appears to be a consequence of lack of awareness of the existing methods available that address this issue. Considering the role of dairy advisors in the introduction of technological changes in the region, and farmers' general positive attitudes towards avoiding unnecessary pain, changing practices on farms will require changing the views and behaviours of those that advise the farmers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the MCT/CNPq/CT-Agronegócio/MAPA-SDC 40/2008, Proc. 505862/2008-5. C. S. Cardoso and M. J. Hötzel were funded by CNPq / (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brazil). M. A. G. von Keyserlingk thanks CNPq's Science Without Borders program for the funding provided to facilitate her stay in Brazil through Grant N°. 400850/2013-3.
REFERENCES AVMA, 2014. Literature review on the welfare implications of the dehorning and disbudding of cattle. American Veterinary Medical Association,
22
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/Welfare-Implications-ofDehorning-and-Disbudding-Cattle.aspx. Accessed: 16 October 2015. Balcão LF, Longo C, Costa JHC, Uller-Gómez C, Machado Filho LCP and Hötzel MJ Characterization of smallholding dairy farms in southern Brazil. Animal Production Science in press. Becker, J., Reist, M., Steiner, A., 2014. Factors influencing the attitudes of cattle veterinarians, farmers, and claw trimmers towards the pain associated with the treatment of sole ulcers and the sensitivity to pain of dairy cows. Vet. J. 200, 38-43. Bergman, M.A., Richert, R.M., Cicconi-Hogan, K.M., Gamroth, M.J., Schukken, Y.H., Stiglbauer, K.E., Ruegg, P.L., 2014. Comparison of selected animal observations and management practices used to assess welfare of calves and adult dairy cows on organic and conventional dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 97, 4269-4280. Brasil, 2011. IN n° 46, de 6 de outubro de 2011. Estabelece o Regulamento Técnico para os Sistemas Orgânicos de Produção Animal e Vegetal. Ministério da Agricultura Pecuária e Abastecimento, Brasília. Burton, R.J.F., 2004. Seeing through the 'good farmer's' eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of 'productivist' behaviour. Soc. Ruralis 44, 195-+. Caray, D., de Boyer des Roches, A., Frouja, S., Andanson, S., Veissier, I., 2015. Hot-iron disbudding: stress responses and behavior of 1- and 4-week-old calves receiving antiinflammatory analgesia without or with sedation using xylazine. Livest. Sci. 179, 22-28.. CFMV (Conselho Federal de Medicina Veterinária). Resolução Nº 877, de 15 de fevereiro de 2008. Dispõe sobre os procedimentos cirúrgicos em animais de produção e silvestres. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília. 23
Chaddad, F.R., Jank, M.S., 2006. The evolution of agricultural policies and agribusiness development in Brazil. Choices 21, 85-90. Cole, M., 2011. From "Animal Machines" to "Happy Meat"? Foucault's ideas of disciplinary and pastoral power applied to "Animal-Centred" welfare discourse. Animals 1, 83-101. Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 2007. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California. Costa JHC, Hötzel MJ, Longo C and Balcão LF 2013. A survey of management practices that influence production and welfare of dairy cattle on family farms in southern Brazil. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 307-317. Cozzi, G., Gottardo, F., Brscic, M., Contiero, B., Irrgang, N., Knierim, U., Pentelescu, O., Windig, J.J., Mirabito, L., Eveillard, F.K., Dockes, A.C., Veissier, I., Velarde, A., Fuentes, C., Dalmau, A., Winckler, C., 2015. Dehorning of cattle in the EU Member States: A quantitative survey of the current practices. Livest. Sci. 179, 4-11. Daros, R.R., Costa, J.H.C., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Hötzel, M.J., Weary, D.M., 2014. Separation from the dam causes negative judgement bias in dairy calves. PLoS ONE 9, e98429. Duffield, T.F., 2008. Current data on dehorning calves. 41st Annual Convention of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners. American Association of Bovine Practitioners, Auburn, AL., pp. 25–28. Faulkner, P.M., Weary, D.M., 2000. Reducing pain after dehorning in dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 83, 2037–2041. Festinger, L.A., 1957. Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
24
Fredriksen, B., Johnsen, A.M.S., Skuterud, E., 2011. Consumer attitudes towards castration of piglets and alternatives to surgical castration. Res. Vet. Sci. 90, 352-357. Fulwider, W.K., Grandin, T., Rollin, B.E., Engle, T.E., Dalsted, N.L., Lamm, W.D., 2008. Survey of dairy management practices on one hundred thirteen north central and northeastern united states dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 91, 1686-1692. Gottardo, F., Nalon, E., Contiero, B., Normando, S., Dalvit, P., Cozzi, G., 2011. The dehorning of dairy calves: Practices and opinions of 639 farmers. J. Dairy Sci. 94, 5724-5734. Hewson, C.J., Dohoo, I.R., Lemke, K.A., Barkema, H.W., 2007. Factors affecting Canadian veterinarians' use of analgesics when dehorning beef and dairy calves. Can. Vet. Journal-Rev. Vet. Can. 48, 1129-1136. Hoe, F.G.H., Ruegg, P.L., 2006. Opinions and practices of Wisconsin dairy producers about biosecurity and animal well-being. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 2297-2308. Hötzel, M.J., 2014. Improving farm animal welfare: is evolution or revolution needed in production systems? In: Appleby, M.C., Weary, D.M., Sandoe, P. (Eds.), Dilemmas in Animal Welfare. CABI, Oxfordshire, UK, pp. 67-84. Hötzel, M.J., Longo, C., Balcão, L.F., Cardoso, C.S., Costa, J.H.C., 2014. A survey of management practices that influence performance and welfare of dairy calves reared in Southern Brazil. PLoS ONE 9, e114995. Hötzel, M.J., Sneddon, J.N., 2013. The role of extensionists in Santa Catarina, Brazil, in the adoption and rejection of providing pain relief to calves for dehorning. J. Dairy Sci. 96, 15351548. Huxley, J.N., Whay, H.R., 2006. Current attitudes of cattle practitioners to pain and the use of analgesics in cattle. Vet. Rec. 159, 662-+. 25
IBGE, 2009. Censo Agropecuário. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/agropecuaria/censoagro/. Accessed: 15 February 2016. IBGE, 2006. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica, Censo Agropecuário 2006. http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/agropecuaria/censoagro/2006/. Accessed: 15 October 2015. ICEPA, 2014. Síntese anual da agricultura de Santa Catarina, 2013-2014. Epagri/Cepa, Florianópolis, SC. Kling-Eveillard, F., Irrgang, N., Knierim, U., Gottardo, F., Ricci, R., Dockès, A.-C., 2009. Report on farmers' attitude towards the practice of dehorning. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/docs/calves_alcasde_D-2-1-2.pdf. Kling-Eveillard, F., Knierim, U., Irrgang, N., Gottardo, F., Ricci, R., Dockès, A.C., 2015. Attitudes of farmers towards cattle dehorning. Livest. Sci. 179, 12-21. Knierim, U., Irrgang, N., Roth, B.A., 2015. To be or not to be horned-Consequences in cattle. Livest. Sci. 179, 29-37. Marie, M., 2006. Ethics: The new challenge for animal agriculture. Livest. Sci. 103, 203-207. Martinelli, L.A., Naylor, R., Vitousek, P.M., Moutinho, P., 2010. Agriculture in Brazil: impacts, costs, and opportunities for a sustainable future. Curr. Op. Envir. Sust. 2, 431-438. Menke, C., Peer, M., Schneider, C., Spengler, A., Waiblinger, S., 2015. Introducing structural elements into the free resting area in loose-housing systems with horned dairy cows: Effects on lying behaviour and cleanliness. Livest. Sci. 179, 38-46. Miele, M., Veissier, I., Evans, A., Botreau, R., 2011. Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Anim. Welf. 20, 103-117. 26
Milligan, B.N., Duffield, T., Lissemore, K., 2004. The utility of ketoprofen for alleviating pain following dehorning in young dairy calves. Can. Vet. Journal-Rev. Vet. Can. 45, 140-143. Minayo, M.C.S., 2008. O desafio do conhecimento. Hucitec, São Paulo. Neave, H.W., Daros, R.R., Costa, J.H.C., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., weary, D.M., 2013. Pain and pessimism: Dairy calves exhibit negative judgement bias following hot-iron disbudding. PLoS ONE 8, e80556. Robbins, J.A., Weary, D.M., Schuppli, C.A., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2015. Stakeholder views on treating pain due to dehorning dairy calves. Anim. Welf. in press. Schneider, S., Niederle, P.A., 2010. Resistance strategies and diversification of rural livelihoods: the construction of autonomy among Brazilian family farmers. J. Peas. Studies 37, 379-405. Seyferth, G., 1993. Identidade camponesa e identidade étnica (um estudo de caso). Anuário Antropológico/91. Tempo Brasileiro, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 31-63. Spooner, J.M., Schuppli, C.A., Fraser, D., 2014. Attitudes of Canadian pig producers toward animal welfare. J. Agric. Envir. Ethics, 27, 569–589. Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., 2011. Addressing the pain associated with disbudding and dehorning in cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 135, 226-231. Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., 2005. Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. The Veterinary Journal 169, 337–349. Stilwell G, G., Lima, M.S., Broom, D.M., 2008. Comparing the effect of three different disbudding methods on behaviour and plasma cortisol of calves. Rev Port Cienc Vet 102, 281-288.
27
Stock, M.L., Baldridge, S.L., Griffin, D., Coetzee, J.F., 2013. Bovine dehorning assessing pain and providing analgesic management. Vet. Clin. of North Amer.-Food Anim. Pract. 29, 103+. Thomsen, P.T., Anneberg, I., Herskin, M.S., 2012. Differences in attitudes of farmers and veterinarians towards pain in dairy cows. Vet. J. 194, 94-97. Tuyttens, F.A.M., Vanhonacker, F., Verhille, B., De Brabander, D., Verbeke, W., 2012. Pig producer attitude towards surgical castration of piglets without anaesthesia versus alternative strategies. Res. Vet. Sci. 92, 524-530. USDA, 2010. Dairy 2007, Heifer Calf Health and Management Practices on U.S. Dairy Operations. In: Agriculture, USDA (Ed.). United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO. Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F.A.M., 2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livest. Sci. 116, 126-136. Vasseur, E., Borderas, F., Cue, R.I., Lefebvre, D., Pellerin, D., Rushen, J., Wade, K.M., de Passille, A.M., 2010. A survey of dairy calf management practices in Canada that affect animal welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 93, 1307-1315. von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Hötzel, M.J., 2015. The ticking clock: Addressing farm animal welfare in emerging countries. J. Agric. Envir. Ethics 28, 179-195. Windig, J.J., Cozzi, G., Vessier, I., 2015. Introduction to the special issue on alternatives for cattle dehorning. Livest. Sci. 179, 1-3. Wikman, I., Hokkanen, A.H., Pastell, M., Kauppinen, T., Valros, A., Hanninen, L., 2013. Dairy producer attitudes to pain in cattle in relation to disbudding calves. J. Dairy Sci. 96, 68946903. 28
Highlights:
Farmers have positive attitudes towards dehorning calves.
Farmers perceive dehorning as a painful experience for the calves.
Lack of knowledge on available methods for pain mitigation is a barrier to changing practice.
Changing dehorning practices may require changes in farm advisors' attitudes.
29