The Welfare of Cattle: Review of Recent Literature

Jon M. Watts
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Saskatchewan

Introduction
The cattle industry in Canada comprises three main enterprises: dairy, veal and beef
production. With regard to welfare concerns, much of the available research literature concerns
the dairy industry. This should not be taken as evidence that the welfare of dairy cattle is
generally poorer than the welfare of veal or beef animals. Each sector of the industry has its
specific problem areas. Some issues affect all sectors to varying degrees. Several review
articles have described the main issues of concern. Although these have also been heavily
biased toward the needs of the dairy industry, it is notable that many of the issues raised will
also apply to beef and or veal production to some extent.

In carrying out this review it became apparent that some researchers and writers closely
associated with cattle production see discussion of, and action on, animal welfare issues as
detrimental to the needs of the industry. Such defensive posturing is, I believe, a problem in
itself. A substantial number of the articles procured in a literature search prior to the writing of
this chapter appeared to embody this view. That is to say they treated animal rights
organisations, and even “ignorant” members of the consuming public, as enemies of the
industry, or difficulties to be circumvented. Some were specifically devoted to “proving” that a
certain industry practice is not harmful to welfare (typically by pointing to a lack of scientific
evidence that it is a concern). For the most part, articles in this vein have not been helpful in
identifying the real welfare problems and few have been cited in this review. This criticism is not
aimed particularly at the Canadian industry, rather at the multinational group of researchers and
commentators whose publications were located during our literature search. For example, there
were several articles arguing that there is little evidence that the use of bovine somatotropin (not
presently licensed for use in Canada) presents a threat to the welfare of dairy cows. These do
not outweigh a couple of recent papers which present such evidence and conclude that a
problem does exist. What they do suggest is that there is a degree of complacency over
currently accepted practices and a resistance to any discussion of change. Concern for the
protection of animal welfare should not be viewed as incompatible with efficient management
and high productivity. An important goal for researchers should be to illustrate where
improvements in welfare can lead to improved production. Rushen and de Passillé (1998) take
this approach and consider that animal welfare research can contribute to improved housing
and management systems and a better public image of the industry. They identify some areas
where welfare and production interests are likely to coincide. These include handling practices
to reduce animals’ fear of humans and improvements in veal calf housing and calf management.
Chenoweth (1998) notes that public opinion is likely to be central to the future fortunes of the
dairy and veal industries. Research demonstrating where and how good welfare and good
animal production go together is very much to the industry’s benefit.

Welfare issues listed by Arave and Albright (1998) included lack of individual attention,
transportation, painful procedures, prolonged stanchion tying, pasturing, separation of cow and
calf, housing and susceptibility to disease and metabolic disorders. Albright and Arave also
noted that animal rights proponents do have legitimate concerns which the industry needs to
address. These include the early separation of cow and calf, cows being almost continually
pregnant, the reduced life span of cows compared with their natural longevity, use of drugs, new
technology, environmental issues and the decline of family farming enterprises. Writing on the
dairy industry in Ireland, Collins (1995) cited housing, milking methods, nutrition and
reproduction as the main management areas with particular consequences for animal welfare.
Webster (1995) argues that many problems for dairy cow welfare are attributable to systems of
feeding, milking and management that are unsuited to the biological nature of the animal. This
observation could be made with equal validity in respect of beef and veal production methods
also. Macpherson (1998) reports that the Farm Animal Welfare Council, in the UK., has
identified lameness as one of the most urgent welfare problems facing the British dairy industry.

Academically, welfare has been defined in various ways by different authorities, with different
implications as to how welfare should be assessed or measured. Poor animal welfare has been
considered a state in which animals become more susceptible to negative pathologies (Moberg,
1993), a condition in which they experience difficulty coping with their environment (Broom,
1993) and a state in which they are unable to act according to the biological nature of their
species (Rollin, 1995). The most simple and intuitive view of animal welfare, but perhaps the
most challenging to use practically, is that welfare is to do with what animals feel (Duncan,
1993). In practice, a variety of forms of measurement have become important in assessing
welfare including health (Alban and Agger, 1997), physiology (Jacobson and Cook, 1998),
immunology (Amadori et al., 1997) and behaviour (Wiepkema, 1983). While the traditional
approach has been to try to identify conditions in which welfare is likely to be poor and act to
improve them, welfare scientists are increasingly becoming interested in indicators of positive
welfare. In the future it should be increasingly possible to develop systems which promote good
welfare, rather than simply tinkering with existing methods to ameliorate the worst signs of poor
welfare. In cattle, indicators of comfort (Haley et al., 2000) and frequency of play behaviour
(Jensen et al., 1998) are probably related to conditions in which welfare is good, as distinct from
not bad.

Transport
The transportation of cattle subjects them to a number of manipulations that may threaten their
welfare. These include loading and unloading, mixing, close and close confinement within a
moving vehicle. Tarrant (1990) reviews studies of the effects of the various components of the
transport chain in an effort to identify which have the most serious impact on the animals.
The most stressful part of the transport procedure appears to be the actual confinement on a
moving vehicle. Confinement on a stationary vehicle is less stressful. Loading, unloading and
penning in an unfamiliar environment are less stressful components. Overcrowding presents the
risk that animals that go down during transport may be become trapped on the floor. Low
stocking density renders animals more vulnerable to falling as a result of careless driving and
sudden stops. Other important influences on cattle welfare during transport are the quality of
stockmanship, driving care and road conditions.
Knowles (1999) reviews scientific literature on the road transport of cattle. It is particularly
concerned with conditions within the European Union, but the general conclusions are also
relevant to the Canadian situation. Unlike pigs and sheep, cattle prefer to remain standing while
being transported. Because of this they are more susceptible to the motion of the vehicle and
tire more quickly than other species. Toward the end of long journeys (16-18 hours) they do
begin to lie down, suggesting that they find the effort of standing for this long in a moving vehicle
quite demanding. Several studies have looked at the physiological effects of different journey
times and rest and feeding intervals. Warris et al., (1995) suggest that for 12-18 month old
steers journey times of up to 15 hours may be acceptable under good conditions. However,
more research is required to determine the maximum acceptable journey time between rest
periods. Young calves are particularly vulnerable during transport and mortality can be high.
Adult cattle are more resilient. Knowles et al (1999) showed that 1 to 2 week old calves cannot
maintain normal body temperature during transport in cool weather conditions (average 2 deg C
in the vehicle). Following a 19 hour transport with a 1 hour break, body temperature remained
below normal for over 8 hours. When food and water deprivation is combined with
transportation, cattle lose weight rapidly. Weight loss is primarily due to loss of gut contents and
dehydration. Some studies (e.g. Schaefer et al., 1997) have shown that prophylactic use of oral
electrolytes can help reduce transport stress. This helps to lessen live weight and carcase
weight losses during transport and also reduce loss of meat quality. Increases in the distance
that cows are transported to a slaughter facility are associated with the number and severity of
bruises. Work by Jarvis et al., 1996 suggests that direct marketing of cattle from farm to
slaughter may be preferable for both welfare and meat quality.

Distress during transport can be avoided if animals have sufficient rest, good handling, good
driving, and if properly designed facilities and equipment are used. Agriculture Canada’s
Recommended Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of beef, dairy and veal animals
give guidelines intended to protect animals during transport. Present federal regulations
governing maximum permitted journey times may be inadequate to safeguard welfare.

Slaughter
Welfare of cattle at the point of slaughter will be strongly affected by the condition in which they
enter the killing facility. In the days immediately preceding slaughter they will have experienced
psychological and physiological stresses due to some combination of handling, transport, food
and water deprivation and mixing with unfamiliar animals. In order to provide conditions in which
animals can experience a humane death, it is necessary to consider the welfare impact of the
whole chain of events leading up to death, not just the technical means of ending the animal’s
life.

The need for a rest period following transport and prior to slaughter has been discussed by Van
Logtestijn and Romme (1981). Some would argue that such a lairage interval after transport is
necessary. Others would prefer that animals be killed immediately following arrival at the
slaughter plant. This is often not possible due to the time of arrival or delays in processing. In
theory a rest period can help to overcome problems with meat quality which occur when very
stressed or overtired animals are slaughtered. In practice animals may not recover from the
stresses of transportation during lairage. Indeed they may become more agitated and
aggressive, especially if mixed with unfamiliar animals.

Handling during slaughter operations is also important. Poorly designed facilities and
unsympathetic treatment by plant employees during pre-slaughter handling can contribute to
unnecessary suffering during the procedure. Of great concern is the excessive use of electric
prods and poorly designed or improperly operated restraining equipment. Grandin (1998)
suggested that in better-run facilities fewer cattle vocalize during handling. She advocated
counts of vocalization as a very simple indicator of animal welfare during this process. This
measure forms part of the welfare auditing process for slaughter plants currently used by
McDonalds corporation.

The killing of cattle on a commercial scale is normally by exsanguination (bleeding) of an

unconscious animal, which has been stunned either electrically, or by means of a penetrating
captive bolt mechanism. The most crucial requirements for animal welfare during killing are that
the stunning be immediately effective at the first attempt and that the method of bleeding causes
death from hypovolemia before the animal can regain consciousness. Some work by Anil et al.
(1995a, b) shows that severing both carotid arteries may not always be effective in causing swift
brain death. They suggest sticking in the chest to sever the brachicephalic trunk may be more
effective.

Animals that are unfit to endure transport to a slaughter plant should be humanely killed as soon
as possible to avoid unnecessary suffering. It is important that accurate prognoses be obtained
for sick, disabled and downer animals in order to arrive at a swift, economically sensible and
humane decision as to their disposal (Stark, 1995). Ideally, farm operators should adopt, in
consultation with their veterinarian, protocols to follow for sick or injured animals which would
include a decision to euthanise as soon as suffering becomes severe, or it is concluded that
there is little prospect for recovery. Methods for on-farm euthanasia, and their advantages and
disadvantages are discussed by Gardner (1999).

Lameness
Lameness is a major concern, particularly in the dairy industry, as a health problem which
causes significant economic losses as well as acute or chronic pain to the sufferers. Specific
conditions causing lameness include sole abscesses and ulceration, white line disease,
laminitis, foot rot and interdigital hyperplasia (Shearer, 1997). The etiology of lameness is
complicated (Webster, 1996). Many authorities agree however that the incidence can be
considerably reduced by attention to facility design, including lying and walking surfaces,
hygiene and regular hoof care (Scott, 1996; Faull et al., 1996; Shearer, 1997).

Painful Procedures
Cattle are subject to a range of invasive and painful procedures which may have both short term
and long term consequences. Examples affecting cattle include castration, dehorning, branding
and tail-docking. It is important to study the effect of these procedures in order to discover ways
to minimise their impact on welfare. Where more than one method is available to achieve a
desired end, for example hot-iron or freeze branding, it appropriate to ask which is less painful.
Hot-iron branding appears to cause more tissue damage (Schwartzkopf-Genswein and Stookey,
1997)and more struggling during restraint (Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al., 1998) than freeze
branding. It is also sensible to ask whether alternatives are available which can accomplish the
purpose for which the procedure is normally carried out. For example subdermal electronic
identification and ear-tagging (both of which involve some discomfort) can achieve some of the
same aims as branding, but perhaps not all, depending on the requirements of the individual
owner. In addition to causing pain, branding does entail some interruption in growth and
reduces the value of hides. Although tail-docking of dairy cows is typically justified by producers
as being advantageous for the control of mastitis, leptospirosis and fly numbers (Barnett et al.,
1999), it is chiefly performed for the convenience of stock persons during milking. Removal of
the distal portion of the spinal cord, whether by knife, shears or rubber ring causes acute and
possibly chronic pain. Research has not yet shown whether tail-docking in cattle leads to
traumatic neuroma formation (associated with chronic pain) as it does in human amputees, the
beak stumps of debeaked poultry or the tail stumps of docked pigs. But it seems likely. Ideally
producers should decide on both welfare and economic grounds whether their objectives of any
of these procedures can be fulfilled with less traumatic methods.

Dehorning is practiced by all sectors of the cattle industry. Other than for aesthetic reasons (for
some farmers) horns on cattle are generally undesirable since they are capable of inflicting
painful and economically significant injuries on other animals and present an additional risk to
human handlers. Several methods of dehorning are available including heat cauterization (Graf
and Senn, 1999) and amputation by scoop, guillotine, shears, saw or embryotomy wire
(Sylvester et al., 1998). All these methods cause pain and distress and ideally should be
performed under local anesthetic. Cryosurgical (freezing) techniques may be less painful but are
more time-consuming and not always effective (Bengtsson et al., 1996). A non-painful
alternative is to dehorn through genetics by using polled bulls. It used to be held that horned
cattle were in some ways superior to their polled counterparts. In beef cattle at least this is no
longer true. Stookey and Goonewardene (1996) compared production traits of large numbers of
horned and polled beef bulls and found no disadvantage for polled bulls. Beef farmers could
choose to eliminate the pain and setback in growth due to dehorning simply by making more
use of polled animals. Behaviourally, the responses to handling and restraint are similar in
horned and polled cattle of beef and dairy types (Goonewardene et al, 1999). At present there
are relatively few polled Holstein/Friesian sires available. Polledness combined with good
productivity would be a desirable combination in dairy cattle. It is hoped that this will be one
objective of future dairy breeding programmes.

Castration of male beef calves is likely to remain common, since it decreases aggressiveness
and sexual behaviour and the incidence of dark-cutting meat (Fisher et al., 1996). Again several
methods are available all of which are associated with acute pain. Rubber ring castration in
particular also causes chronic pain which may persist for weeks (Moloney et al, 1995). On
humane grounds, as well as to maintain health and growth, all castration ought to be performed
with an appropriate regime of local anaesthesia and long-lasting analgesics. However this would
be unacceptably expensive to the industry. It used to be a common belief that such procedures
are best performed on very young animals because they do not experience pain to the same
degree as older ones. Recent evidence suggests that this view is probably wrong. There may
still be reason to advocate doing these procedures early, as younger animals do recover
quicker, with fewer complications.

Reproductive Technology
Most invasive techniques intended to enhance reproduction or genetic traits in cattle carry some
consequences for the welfare of the animals involved. Electroejaculation is often used to collect
of semen for breeding soundness evaluation or artificial insemination. Despite its painful and
distressing nature, this is routinely practised on bulls without sedation or anaesthesia (Stafford,
1995). Epidural anaesthesia may be a useful method to reduce the pain associated with
electroejaculation (Mosure et al., 1998). In vitro production of embryos is associated with
increased birth weight and more calving difficulties (van der Lende et al., 1999). Artificial
insemination and multiple ovulation embryo transfer also involve invasive techniques which
could cause distress and discomfort. Welfare consequences of the production of transgenic
livestock are discussed by van Reenan and Blokhuis (1997). In the light of recent progress in
cloning livestock, it has become clear that there are ethical dimensions to decisions concerning
the use of biotechnology in animal production (de Boer et al., 1995). The full welfare
consequences of reproductive technologies such as transgenics and cloning have yet to be
evaluated and as yet are not major influences on welfare in today’s production systems. This is
an important area in which we should await further developments with interest.

Bovine Somatotropin (BST)

It has been noted several times in the literature that there is little evidence that the use of BST
presents a hazard to dairy cow welfare (e.g. Ceelen, 1995; Bijman, 1996; IFST, 1998; ).
However in 1999, Health Canada decided not to approve BST for sale in Canada, mainly on the
grounds that its use presented an unacceptable risk to the safety of cattle (not humans). Also in
1999 the European Union Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare
recommended on welfare grounds that BST should not be used to increase milk yields in cattle.
The committee described as misleading certain studies purporting to show no connection
between BST and mastitis and lameness because the numbers of animals studied were too
small. BST extends the period of metabolic stress accompanying lactation (Kronfield, 1994).
According to the American Food and Drug Administration, the use of BST increases the
incidence of mastitis. BST injections also cause a considerable number of moderate to severe
lesions at the injection site (Pell et al., 1992). Various reproductive and health problems are
associated with the use of BST including lower pregnancy rates, increased multiple births, bloat,
indigestion and diarrhoea. More work is needed to show the full impact of BST on cow welfare,
but there is increasing evidence that there are, in fact, some welfare problems associated with
its use. From this perspective it looks as though the decision not to license BST in Canada is
the correct one.

The Physical Environment

Researchers have raised a number of concerns over the physical environment and basic
maintenance of cattle in production. Among the areas studied were housing design and space
allowances, resting and walking surfaces, environmental complexity (or lack thereof) and
feeding regimes.

Housing
Space limitations can affect the welfare of cattle. In a review of veal calf housing, Le Neindre
(1993) notes that stalls that greatly restrict freedom of movement to the extent that lying down is
difficult lower growth rates and resistance to disease. Dairy calves in small individual stalls
showed reduced lymphocyte numbers compared with their counterparts in larger stalls (Ferrante
et al., 1998). Large individual crates with open partitions could be an acceptable alternative to
group housing. However improving existing group housing systems to incorporate better flooring
and automated feeding systems would be better still. Finishing beef heifers housed at a density
of 1.5 m2 per animal showed a substantial decrease in daily weight gain compares with animals
stocked at 3 m2 per animal (Fisher et al., 1997). When cattle are maintained outside in summer,
studies show that heat stress can be significantly reduced if shade is provided (Spain and
Spiers, 1995; Valtorta et al., 1997). This is certainly a benefit to their welfare. Natural shade is
often available in pasture environments. But where this is not the case, the provision of
supplemental shade should be considered. Vandenheede et al. (1995) showed that the use of
shelter by grazing bulls increased as daytime temperatures rose. More use of supplemental
shade should also be considered in beef feedlots.

Feeding
Welfare appears to be compromised when cattle are fed restricted diets or diets deficient in
roughage. When the feeding regime is such that the animal can consume its ration within a very
short time, its feeding motivation is not fully satisfied, even though its nutritional needs may be.
In these circumstances cattle become frustrated and may exhibit stereotypic behaviour and non-
nutritive oral activities directed at fittings or other animals. Le Neindre (1993) concluded that
milk-only diets should be avoided, and that care must be taken to provide veal caves with
sufficient roughage as a way to enrich their environment. Morisse et al. (1999) found that milk
replacer-fed calves given supplements of pelleted straw and cereals showed reductions in non-
nutritive oral activity and in the number of hair balls ingested. Production systems that provide
feed only during a short period of the day are associated with stereotypic and other undesirable
behaviours. In such systems environmental enrichment techniques may be appropriate (Wilson
et al., 1999). Redbo et al (1996) found that dairy cows performed significantly more oral
stereotypic behaviour when feed was restricted compared with cows given an ad libitum diet.
Oral stereotypies were also more frequent in heifers fed a low roughage diet (Redbo and
Nordblad, 1997).

The Social Environment

Cattle are highly social animals. Therefore it is inevitable that the properties of their social
environment will have some effect on their state of welfare. A key decision in raising young
cattle, particularly dairy and veal animals is whether to house them singly or in groups.
Depriving veal calves of social contact makes them more reactive to startling stimuli and more
prone to develop self-directed oral behaviours (Veissier et al., 1997). Individually reared calves
are more fearful of novel situations than group housed animals (Jensen et al., 1997). In general
it should not be acceptable to allow farm animals to exist in a state where they are excessively
fearful of their caregivers and changes in their environment. Fearfulness affects welfare by
increasing stress responses and the risk of injury (Boissy and Bouissou, 1995). Cattle do form
social relationships of a sort with humans. Cattle apparently learn to recognise individual
humans and modify their responses to them based on the pleasantness or aversiveness of
previous encounters with a particular individual (de Passillé et al., 1996). However they do not
always generalize a learned aversion to a person to locations other than where the aversive
incidents took place (Rushen et al., 1998). Obviously both humans and cattle have much to gain
when stock persons strive for positive interactions with their charges.

Buller Steer Syndrome

Buller steer syndrome describes a condition in which a steer (the" buller") is mounted and
ridden repeatedly by other steers in a pen to the point of exhaustion, injury or death (Blackshaw
et al., 1997). The condition most commonly occurs in commercial feedlots, when more than
200-250 animals are kept in each pen. Bulling is also associated with stressful events such as
mixing and handling, and possible changes in the weather. Some hormonal implants,
particularly estrogens may increase bulling. To reduce bulling, Blackshaw et al. recommend
keeping steers in groups of fewer than 250 animals. Keeping animals in groups of no more than
100 would probably eliminate the problem almost completely. The etiology and development of
buller steer syndrome is still mysterious. However, stressors such as variable feedbunk
management, improper implantation and the presence of disease organisms may be involved.
Environmental enrichment may be beneficial, but more research is required in this area, as may
be devices such as buller rails (metal extensions of the fence under which cattle can hide).
Bulling is clearly a serious welfare issue for the animal being ridden. An unknown quantity,
which these authors do not address, is the extent to which buller steer syndrome may be
symptomatic of chronic social stress among all animals in a pen.

References
Animal production and welfare issues: dairy cattle and veal calves. North American Veterinary
Conference, 1998; Orlando, Fla. 1998; 902 p. Proceedings of the North American
Veterinary Conference, 1998.

Health as a parameter for assessing dairy herd welfare: advantages and disadvantages. The
Society; 1997; 120 p. Proceedings of a meeting for the Society of Veterinary
Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine.

Amadori,M., Archetti,I.L., Frasnelli,M., Bagni,M., Olzi,E., Caronna,G., Lanteri,M. 1997. An

immunological approach to the evaluation of welfare in Holstein Frisian cattle. Journal of
Veterinary Medicine B 44 :321-327.

Anil,M.H., McKinstry,J.L., Gregory,N.G., Wotton,S.B., Symonds,H. 1995. Welfare of calves -- 2.

Increase in vertebral artery blood flow folowing exsanguination by neck sticking and
evaluation of chest sticking as an alternative slaughter method. Meat Science 41:113-
123.

Anil,M.H., McKinstry,J.L., Wotton,S.B., Gregory,N.G. 1995. Welfare of calves -- 1.

Investigations into some aspects of calf slaughter. Meat Science 41:101-112.

Arave,C.W. and Albright,J.L. 1998. Animal welfare issues: dairy. Animal Welfare Information
Centre Newsletter 9:3-10.

Barnett,J.L., Coleman,G.J. , Hemsworth,P.H., Newman,E.A., Fewings-Hall,S., Ziini,C. 1999.

Tail docking and beliefs about the practice in the Victorian dairy industry. Australian
Veterinary Journal 77:742

Bengtsson,B., Menzel,A., Holtenius,P., Jacobsson,S.-O. 1996. Cryosurgical dehorning of

calves: a preliminary study. Veterinary Record 138:234-237.
Bijman,J. 1996. Recombinant bovine somatotropin in Europe and the USA. Biotechnology and
Development Monitor no.27:2-5.

Blackshaw,J.K., Blackshaw,A.W., McGlone,J.J. 1997. Buller steer syndrome review. Appl.

Anim. Behav. Sci. 54:97-108.

Boissy,A. and Bouissou,M.F. 1995. Assessment of individual differences in behavioural

reactions of heifers exposed to various fear-eliciting situations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.
46:17-31.

Broom,D.M. 1993. A usable definition of animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and

Environmental Ethics 6:15-25.

Ceelen,H.J. 1995. Bovine somatotropin and cow health - what are the facts? Canadian
Veterinary Journal 36:25

Collins,J.D. 1995. Animal welfare on dairy farms. Irish Veterinary Journal 48:145-147.

de Boer,I.J.M., Brom,F.W.A., Vorstenbosch,J.M.G. 1995. An ethical evaluation of animal

biotechnology: the case of using clones in dairy cattle breeding. Animal Science 61:453-
463.

de Passille,A.M., Rushen,J., Ladewig,J., Petherick,C. 1996. Dairy calves' discrimination of

people based on previous handling. Journal of Animal Science 74:969-974.

Duncan,I.J.H. 1993. Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 6:8-13.

Faull,W.B., Hughes,J.W., Clarkson,M.J., Downham,D.Y., Manson,F.J., Merritt,J.B., Murray,R.D.,

Russell,W.B., Sutherst,J.E., Ward,W.R. 1996. Epidemiology of lameness in dairy cattle:
the influence of cubicles and indoor and outdoor walking surfaces. Veterinary Record
139:130-136.

Ferrante,V., Canali,E., Mattiello,S., Verga,M., Sacerdote,P., Manfredi,B., Panerai,A.E. 1998.

Preliminary study on the effect of size of individual stall on the behavioural and immune
reactions of dairy calves. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 7:29-36.

Fisher,A.D., Crowe,M.A., Alonso de la Varga,M.E., Enright,W.J. 1996. Effect of castration

method and the provision of local anesthesia on plasma cortisol, scrotal circumference,
growth, and feed intake of bull calves. Journal of Animal Science 74:2336-2343.

Fisher,A.D., Crowe,M.A., O'Kiely,P., Enright,W.J. 1997. Growth, behaviour, adrenal and

immune responses of finishing beef heifers housed on slatted floors at 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 or
3.0 m 2 space allowance. Livest. Prod. Sci 51:245-254.

Gardner, D.L. Practical and humane methods for bovine euthanasia. Veterinary Medicine. 1999;
January, 1999 92

Goonewardene,L.A., Price,M.A., Okine,E., Berg,R.T. 1999. Behavioral responses to handling

and restraint in dehorned and polled cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 64:159-167.
Graf,B. and Senn,M. 1999. Behavioural and physiological reponses of calves to dehorning by
heat cauterization with or without local anaesthesia. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 62:153-
171.

Grandin,T. 1998. The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare
during cattle slaughter. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 56:121-128.

Haley,D.B., Rushen,J., de Passille,A.M. 2000. Behavioural indicators of cow comfort: activity

and resting behaviour of dairy cows in two types of housing. Canadian Journal of
Animal Science 80:257-263.

Institute of Food Science & Technology (Public Affairs and Technical & Legislative Committees).
1998. Bovine somatotropin (BST). Food Science & Technology Today 12:169

Jacobson,L.H. and Cook,C.J. 1998. Partitioning psychological and physical sources of

transport-related stress in young cattle. The Veterinary Journal 155:205-208.

Jarvis,A.M., Cockram,M.S., McGilp,I.M. 1996. Bruising and biochemical measures of stress,

dehydration and injury determined at slaughter in sheep transported from farms or
markets. The British Veterinary Journal 152:719-722.

Jensen,M.B., Vestergaard,K.S., Krohn,C.C., Munksgaard,L. 1997. Effect of single versus group

housing and space allowance on responses of calves during open-field tests. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 54:109-121.

Jensen,M.B., Vestergaard,K.S., Krohn,C.C. 1998. Play behaviour in dairy calves kept in pens:
the effect of social contact and space allowance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 56:97-108.

Knowles,T.G. 1999. A review of the road transport of cattle. Veterinary Record 144:197-201.

Knowles,T.G., Brown,S.N., Edwards,J.E., Phillips,A.J., Warriss,P.D. 1999. Effect on young

calves of a one-hour feeding stop during a 19-hour road journey . Veterinary Record
144:687-692.

Le Neindre,P. 1993. Evaluating housing systems for veal calves. Journal of Animal Science
71:1345-1354.

Macpherson,R. 1998. Dairy cattle welfare - the FAWC perspective. Cattle Practice 6:125-126.

Moberg,G.P. 1993. Using risk assessment to define domestic animal welfare. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6:1-7.

Molony,V., Kent,J.E., Robertson,I.S. 1995. Assessment of acute and chronic pain after different
methods of castration of calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 46:33-48.

Morisse,J.P., Cotte,J.P., Huonnic,D., Martrenchar,A. 1999. Influence of dry feed supplements

on different parameters of welfare in veal calves. Animal Welfare 8:43-52.
Mosure,W.L., Meyer,R.A., Gudmundson,J., Barth,A.D. 1998. Evaluation of possible methods
to reduce pain associated with electroejaculation in bulls. Canadian Veterinary Journal
39:504-506.

Redbo,I. and Nordblad,A. 1997. Stereotypies in heifers are affected by feeding regime. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 53:193-202.

Rollin,B.E. 1995. Farm animal welfare: social, bioethical, and research issues. ed. Iowa State
University Press, Ames.

Rushen,J. and de Passille,A.M.B. 1998. Behaviour, welfare and productivity of dairy cattle.
Canadian Journal of Animal Science 78 (Suppl.):3-21.

Rushen,J., Munksgaard,L., de Passille,A.M.B., Jensen,M.B., Thodberg,K. 1998. Location of

handling and dairy cows' responses to people. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 55:259-267.

Schaefer,A.L., Jones,S.D.M., Stanley,R.W. 1997. The use of electrolyte solutions for reducing
transport stress. Journal of Animal Science 75:258-265.

Schwartzkopf-Genswein,K.S. and Stookey,J.M. 1997. The use of infrared thermography to

assess inflammation associated with hot-iron and freeze branding in cattle. Canadian
Journal of Animal Science 77:577-583.

Schwartzkopf-Genswein,K.S., Stookey,J.M., Crowe,T.G., Genswein,B.M.A. 1998. Comparison

of image analysis, exertion force, and behavior measurements for use in the assessment
of beef cattle responses to hot-iron and freeze branding. Journal of Animal Science
76:972-979.

Scott,P.R. 1996. Lameness in dairy cattle. British Veterinary Journal 152:11-12.

Spain,J.N. and Spiers,D.E. 1996. Effects of supplemental shade on thermoregulatory response

of calves to heat challenge in a hutch environment. Journal of Dairy Science 79:639-
646.

Stafford,K.J. 1995. Electroejaculation: a welfare issue? Surveillance 22:15-17.

Stark,D.A. 1995. A review of the veterinarian's role in the handling of down/disabled cattle. The
Bovine Practitioner 29:125-127.

Stookey,J.M. and Goonewardene,L.A. 1996. A comparison of production traits and welfare

implications between horned and polled beef bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science
76:1-5.

Sylvester,S.P., Stafford,K.J., Mellor,D.J., Bruce,R.A., Ward,R.N. 1998. Acute cortisol responses

of calves to four methods of dehorning by amputation. Australian Veterinary Journal
76:123-126.

Tarrant,P.V. 1990. Transportation of cattle by road. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 28:153-170.
Valtorta,S.E. and Leva,P.E. 1997. Evaluation of different shades to improve dairy cattle well-
being in Argentina. International Journal of Biometeorology 41:65-67.

Van Logtestijn,J.G. and Romme,A.M.C.S. 1981. Animal welfare in relation to transport, lairage
and slaughter in cattle (a review). Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine and Animal
Science 10:170-186.

van Reenen,C.G. and Blokhuis,H.J. 1997. Evaluation of welfare of transgenic farm animals:
lessons from a case study in cattle. Kungl. Skogs-och Lantbruksakademiens Tidskrift
136:99-106.

Vandenheede,M., Nicks,B., Shehi,R., Canart,B., Dufrasne,I., Biston,R., Lecomte,P. 1995. Use

of a shelter by grazing fattening bulls: effect of climatic factors. Animal Science 60:81-
85.

Veissier,I., Chazal,P., Pradel,P., Le Neindre,P. 1997. Providing social contacts and objects for
nibbling moderates reactivity and oral behaviors in veal calves. Journal of Animal
Science 75:356-365.

Warriss,P.D., Brown,S.N., Knowles,T.G., Kestin,S.C., Edwards,J.E., Dolan,S.K., Phillips,A.J.

1995. Effects on cattle of transport by road for up to 15 hours. Veterinary Record
136:319-323.

Webster,A.B., Fletcher,D.L., Savage,S.I. 1996. Humane on-farm killing of spent hens. Journal
of Applied Poultry Research 5:191-200.

Webster,A.J.F. Lawrence,T.L.J., Gordon,F.J., and Carson,A., editors. Welfare considerations in

future selection and management strategies. British Society of Animal Science. 1995;
19. p.87 Breeding and Feeding the High Genetic Merit Dairy Cow.

Wiepkema,P.R. 1983. On the significance of ethological criteria for the assessment of animal
welfare. Pages 71-79 in D.Smidt, ed. Indicators relevant to farm animal welfare. Nijhoff,
Hingham,MA.

Wilson,L.L., Terosky,T.L., Stull,C.L., Stricklin,W.R. 1999. Effects of individual housing design

and size on behavior and stress indicators of special-fed veal calves. Journal of Animal
Science 77:1341-1347.
Abstract or Summary of Interesting Publications
Arave,C.W. and Albright,J.L. 1998. Animal welfare issues: dairy. Animal Welfare Information
Centre Newsletter 9: 3-10.

This review article examines current practices in the dairy industry from an animal welfare perspective. It
identifies many of the welfare issues that the industry needs to address, including concerns expressed by
animal rights activists. Issues raised include:
Reduction in the quality and quantity of individual attention.
Transportation of injured and sick animals to slaughter.
Dehorning, castration and identification.
Prolonged stanchion tying of cows, especially without exercise.
Tail docking.
Pasturing.
Separation of cow and calf.
Treatment of bull calves, including transportation.
Housing.
Failure to use welfare-related research knowledge.
Production-related susceptibility to disease and metabolic disorders.

Of particular concern to animal rights proponents were:

Early separation of cow and calf.

Cows being almost continually pregnant.
Reduced lifespan of cows compared with their natural longevity.
Use of drugs to maintain health and antibiotics in feeds.
Family farms being forced out of business.
Harmful new or prospective technology.
Environmental issues.

Grandin,T. 1998. The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare
during cattle slaughter. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 56:121-128.

The author suggests that simple counts of the number of cattle that vocalize during slaughter
could provide a practical indicator of their welfare for use in commercial conditions.
Observations were made in 6 U.S. slaughter plants, with line speeds varying between 50 and
100 animals per hour. At each plant 100-250 cattle were observed from the handler's catwalk as
they were moved through forcing pen, leadup race and into the stunning box. Each animal was
classified as either a vocalizer or a nonvocalizer. There was considerable variation between
plants in the proportion of cattle that vocalized, ranging form 1.1% to 32%. In the 4 plants with
the lowest proportion of vocalizers, employers moved cattle quietly in small groups and only
used electric prods on animals that refused to move. At the two plants with the highest
proportion of vocalizers, 90% and 76% respectively of the cattle vocalized. At these last two
plants, the proportions of vocalizers were reduced from 32% to 13% and from 12% to 3% when
employees were instructed to tap an animal on the rear before resorting to electric prodding.

Nearly all (98.2%) of the cattle that vocalized did so immediately after an observed aversive
event, including slipping, being pressed too tightly in a restraining device or missed captive bolt
stuns. Electric prod use was associated with 64% of the vocalizations. By reducing the
incidence of unnecessary electric prod use it was possible to substantially reduce vocalizations
without slowing down plant operations.

Schwartzkopf-Genswein,K.S. and Stookey,J.M. 1997. The use of infrared thermography to

assess inflammation associated with hot-iron and freeze branding in cattle. Canadian
Journal of Animal Science 77:577-583.

Studies have shown that both hot-iron and freeze branding cause pain in the first 3 hours after branding.
The objective of this study was to determine the extent and duration of inflammation following either type
of branding, and possibly determine which causes least discomfort. Thirty yearling crossbred beef heifers
were assigned either to hot-iron (H) or freeze branding (F) treatment groups (15 per treatment). The day
before branding two patches on the right thigh of each animal were shaved. One patch was to be the brand
site and the other was a reference or control area. The animals entered the facility for branding in a
random order and were given their preassigned treatments. Hot-iron branding was performed using an
electric branding iron in the shape of the University's registered brand, heated for 10 min and applied to
the skin for 3 to 5 seconds. Freeze branding was done with a single copper iron of the same size and shape
as for hot-iron branding, immersed and maintained in liquid nitrogen before and between treatments. The
site for freeze branding was saturated with methyl hydrate and the iron immediately applied and held for
25 seconds. Repeated images of the brand sites and reference patches were made using an infrared
thermographic camera. This records surface skin temperatures as a variable colour image to an accuracy
within 0.1?C. Thermograhic pictures were taken 5 min before branding, immediately after branding, 5
min after branding and at increasing intervals thereafter up to 168 hours (1 week) after branding.
Both H and F brand sites were warmer than their own reference patches between 2 and 168 hours after
branding. Freeze brand sites were warmer 2 and 8 hours after branding and H sites were warmer 144
hours after branding. The thermographic studies showed that both methods of branding caused tissue
damage. Hot iron brand sites were warmer than F sites at 168 hours after branding. The longer duration of
this inflammatory response suggests that hot-iron branding causes more tissue damage and perhaps
greater discomfort than freeze branding.

Stark,D.A. 1995. A review of the veterinarian's role in the handling of down/disabled cattle. The
Bovine Practitioner 29:125-127.

The author notes that a down cow has to be one of the most depressing sights facing a
producer and veterinarian. The public is concerned that these animals are cared for properly
and that the welfare of the animal is not forsaken for economic gain. The veterinarian has
important roles to play in preventing, treating and disposing of such animals. . The American
Association of Bovine Practitioners states that veterinarians have three key responsibilities in
the care of downer cattle. They are:

1) To help prevent conditions leading to ambulatory problems.

Cattle go down for many reasons including septicemia, toxemia, fractures or other injuries,
nutritional and metabolic disturbances and others. Recommendations that promote good herd
health will help to prevent conditions which can lead to ambulatory problems. Good nutrition,
footing and hoof care and early treatment of hypocalcemia are important.

2) To provide an early and accurate prognosis.

The prospects of recovery for a down animal can be difficult to predict, even after thorough
veterinary examination and diagnosis of any disease condition. One study showed that half of
all downer cows rise within four days of going down. The prognosis was poor after seven days.
An important factor is the willingness of the owner to provide good nursing care. If such care is
not provided, the chances of success are poor.

3) To recommend appropriate disposition alternatives.

Producers indicate that they would value veterinary input into decisions about whether to
destroy or salvage a downer animal. But the veterinarian is often not present when the decision
must be made. Discussing disposal options during routine visits could help to equip owners with
useful criteria to use when necessary. An animal should only be sent for salvage when:

the animal is known to be free of conditions and animal health products that would make it unfit
for human consumption.
the animal can be humanely loaded and transported.
the animal can be stunned prior to unloading.

Otherwise the animal should be humanely euthanized.