Does tail docking hurt heifers?

A Guelph scientist wants to study the practice, but administrators have refused to allow it

BY DON STONEMAN

Think your heifers don't feel the pain when you use an elastrator to dock their tails in your new freestall barn? The public might not give you a chance to prove it.

There has been no scientific research to prove docking cows' tails is either painful or painless, says Dr. Ian Duncan, director of the University of Guelph-based Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare. And university administrators will not allow Duncan to be the first to study the procedure.

The university's animal care committee, which oversees research involving live animals, has refused to approve the protocol for Duncan's testing.

"They figure it's too painful," says Duncan, a professor of animal and poultry science.

"We felt the cost of the pain and discomfort inflicted on the animals didn't justify this particular approach," committee chairman Harold Chapman told Farm & Country.

Duncan hopes to win an appeal of the decision and perform the testing this fall. He will argue that it is necessary sometimes to inflict pain on a handful of animals to prevent it being inflicted on a wider animal population.

Chapman, a physiologist with Guelph's department of biomedical sciences, says there's no need to prove that the practice is painful. Studies on lambs in the U.K. show that tail docking causes discomfort, Chapman says. He asked a reporter if he would allow a surgeon to amputate a finger that had a tumour by tying a tight elastic around it.

Aside from the issue of inflicting suffering on animals, Duncan says there is some scientific evidence that shows cows use their tails for more than just swatting flies. They also use them to signal to each other.

Duncan points out that the practice of docking tails appears to be gaining favour in southern Ontario. "As far as I can see it is just fashion," Duncan says. Farmers who have visited farms in Michigan and Wisconsin are coming back to their farms and following suit, he adds.

As for the perceived benefits of tail docking in reducing the incidence of mastitis and improving cows' cleanliness, "No one has examined the evidence closely" in Canada, he says.

"It's very important that we get good solid evidence," Duncan says. Ironically, in New Zealand, where the practice of tail docking first began, it is falling out of favour. (See N.Z. study at left).

Duncan credits that research in 1994 and 1995 with a change in the attitude of farmers. Now many heifers are being put into the milking lines without having their tails docked. "[The research] has shown the advantages simply aren't there," says Duncan.

This doesn't mean that docking tails isn't a good idea in other types of farm situations, Duncan says. He points out that New Zealand cows pasture year-round, and aren't confined as Canadian cows are for much of the year.

Another reason for trimming tails, leptospirosis, has been eliminated. It was once considered a threat to the health of dairy workers who risked being slapped in the face by a manured tail. Lepto is no longer a problem with dairy cows in New Zealand, Duncan says. "They can't claim that as an advantage."

The Guelph committee's decision is seen as an indication of the widening gap between the public perception of farming and what actuallytakes place on farms in Ontario.

Tail docking isn't addressed in the current dairy Code of Practice in Canada. The code was written before the practice became popular, says Leslie Ballentine, executive director, Ontario Farm Animal Council. The pork industry's code of practice has also fallen behind farm practices, she says. An industry group is now writing an appendix to the code to cover the now-common practice of segregated early weaning, where baby pigs are weaned as early as 14 days after birth, she says.

© copyright 1998 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back

N.Z. study says trim tail switch

There is no scientific evidence to prove that tail docking enhances udder and milk hygiene and makes milkers more comfortable as they deal with animals, say New Zealand animal scientists.

Four years ago, scientists at Ruakura's Animal Behaviour and Welfare Research Centre scrutinized stress levels in cows that had their tails taken off. They monitored five sets of five-year-old Holstein Friesian twins. The tail of one of each twin was docked, the other was left alone.

Flies were counted three times a day and blood was tested for hormones that signal stress.

The rear of docked-tailed cows had more flies than undocked cows, and the cows without tails worked harder trying to rid themselves of the flies, continuing to flick the stubs of their tails.

Since blood samples showed no more signs of stress, researchers conclude that the higher number of flies on docked tailed cows caused only moderate stress.

In another study testing milker comfort, 56 heifers were assigned to three treatment groups. One group had their tails docked; a second group had just the switches cut from the tails; and a third group remained untreated. The cows were observed for signs they were trying to avoid biting flies.

Fly numbers were highest on the rears of cows with docked tails, with the number increasing as the tail was shortened. Cows flicked their intact tails less often than cows with trimmed tails.

But there were no differences in milk yield, somatic cell count level, body weights or the frequency of mastitis between treatments.

There appeared to be no advantage for milkers, either. The study says that tails hit milkers in their arms or faces infrequently, regardless of whether the tails were trimmed. But milkers moved trimmed tails aside less frequently than untrimmed tails when attaching milkers.

The study concludes that docking tails is unacceptable, given the additional irritation caused by flies on animals without tails. The researchers suggested that farmers trim the tail switch in the spring when it is most likely to be wet and dirty and allow it to grow back in the summer when flies are most prevalent.

© copyright 1998 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back

Particle size critical for silage processors

BY DON STONEMAN

Is the silage in your bunker cut too fine? Take a look at your alfalfa haylage, too, says OMAFRA dairy nutritionist Beth Wheeler.

Particle size will become even more critical for farmers processing their corn silage, Wheeler told about 600 livestock farmers attending a silage processing demonstration at the Elora research station earlier this month.

Processing unlocks energy in the kernels in corn silage, so fewer pass through in the manure. But fibre size may also be diminished. The reduction in fibre, as well as the higher energy value, can be a recipe for acidosis.

A mix of fibre lengths is critical to maintaining cow rumens, Wheeler said. Long stems form a fibre mat that prevents the smaller particles from passing through too quickly. Particle size sampling using a screen separator, a service available from many feed mills, is a cheap way to ensure that cows have enough fibre in their diets, Wheeler said.

Effective fibre helps maintain milk yield. It also prevents acidosis. Even a few consecutive days with an acidic rumen can cause laminitis in cows' feet, which doesn't show up until months later, Wheeler warned. Cows don't really get over it.

Farmers who already have finely chopped corn silage in their bunkers may have to add an effective fibre source such as cottonseed, dry beet pulp, soy, oat hulls or dried brewers grains to cows' diets.

When testing for particle sizing, one sample isn't enough, Wheeler said. Three to five samples is better. Test samples should be scooped out of the silage, not grasped in a handful, to avoid losing large pieces that can change the percentages in the sample.

Sampling silage is better than sampling chopped corn that comes off the wagon. The blower reduces the particle size. So do tower silo unloaders and aggressive augur-type TMR mixers.

Farmers in eastern Ontario will have variable quality forages in their rained-damaged forages. If forage quality varies through the silo, Wheeler recommends that farmers "play it safe" with higher than recommended NDF levels in their rations to avoid twisted stomachs.

Wheeler recommends that farmers who process change the theoretical cut on the harvester to M of an inch or even a little more from K inch. The best way is likely to remove cutting knives so that a blend of I inch and 1.5 inch particles is achieved.

For rolled corn silage, 10 to 15 per cent of particles should be greater in length than I inch. Farmers switching to heavier corn silage rations should do it gradually, Wheeler said. Free choice access to silage should be avoided. Ration energy should be diluted with straw, if it's necessary to keep cows from getting fat. The body conditions of heifers, dry cows and late lactation cows should be monitored to prevent them from packing on weight on the high-energy silage diet.

The revived interest in corn silage comes with a new twist. Nutritionists used to use just the National Research Council "book values" for corn silage when they calculated rations, Wheeler said, but that's not good enough anymore. Recent research shows that the feeding value of corn silage varies by hybrid. Processing silage adds another factor, making hard corn kernels and stalks more digestible.

© copyright 1998 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back

Better beef for the buck

Premiums and discounts based on quality are in the cards for beef producers, says U.S. professor

BY DON STONEMAN

Like it or not, the way cattle are marketed is going to change. The industry is moving toward a value-based marketing system, where livestock, carcasses and retail cuts are priced on their individual worth to the buyer rather than on an average value.

The practice of putting poorer cattle in the market ring along with good cattle in the hope that the buyer won't notice has to end, says Wesley Osborn, a meat science professor at Michigan State University (MSU) in East Lansing. It brings down the average price for all the animals, he told a beef quality seminar in Guelph recently.

Mark Ishoy, general manager of Kitchener-based MGI Packers, says the company is working on a pricing grid for cattle so that steers, heifers and cows will be purchased like pigs, with a price for a certain yield of saleable meat and a premium or discount based on the characteristics of each carcass.

When an identification system for beef comes into place, MGI will be able to get away from averaging prices and be able to put credit for quality or blame for defects squarely on the shoulders of the producers.

Ishoy believes that premiums must be built into the system. "But with premiums come discounts," he warns.

The pricing grid will eventually include by-products. Offal and hides are worth between $60 and $70 a head, Ishoy says. Feeding a "hot ration" can ruin livers, compromising the value of other organs. So the system will allow the packing plant to track rations fed to cattle as well.

Value-based marketing and rail grade pricing should get the waste out of the beef industry. Over feeding, preventable carcass defects and oversized carcasses have been a known quantity for most of this decade, said Osborn.

A quality audit performed by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association in the U.S. in 1991 showed that losses per carcass averaged $279.82. A repeat of the same audit in 1995 showed a pitiful gain, only $3 in four years.

There was less waste in terms of fat, but taste, an important factor for consumers, was considered to have slipped. And management also fell, with more injection site blemishes, dark cutters and bruising on carcasses than four years earlier.

Part of the fault in the system still lies with retailers, Osborn said. Some store owners prefer to buy overfat animals and do their own trimming rather than buy the closely trimmed carcasses that would net feeders a premium.

If producers are willing to buy better breeding stock and sort cattle for markets demanding a specific quality, packers have to pay more for higher yield animals, Osborn said.

The beef industry needs a pricing grid; the pork industry has had one for years, he said, but admitted the issue is a "hot potato." Cattle feeders don't trust a change and neither do packers.

Osborn said he favours discounts and the "opportunity" for a premium for producers who give the market what it wants consistently.

"How can I pay you a premium if I don't know that I will get [quality] consistently?" he asked.

The diversity of product available in the beef industry isn't necessarily bad, he said. But the product must be sorted so that a particular market gets the product that it needs.

Ishoy agrees: "The restaurant guy I sold [a well-marbled steak] to would probably have a happy customer. If I sold that to a retail guy, it would probably stay on the counter."

© copyright 1998 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back

The tender trap

University of Guelph meat scientist Howard Swatland developed the Connective Tissue (CT) probe. But he is the first to admit that it has its shortcomings.

The CT probe measures only the connective tissue in the meat, he told a beef quality seminar in Guelph recently. Gristle is related to meat tenderness, but it is only one factor.

It's possible to have two sides of beef from the same animal and have one side tender and the other tough, he said. In that case, toughness depends on whether the muscles shortened as the side of beef cooled.

Older animals have more time to lay down connective tissue, so in general younger animals are more tender, Swatland said.

There are some cows that are tender, but some others are completely linked up with collagen. "It's these few animals that give the rest of them a bad reputation," he said.

Swatland handed his probe over to the Ontario Cattlemen's Association. The OCA has since handed it on to the national association.

Peter Doris, special projects manager for the OCA, says there is still an effort being made to commercialize the technology developed by Swatland. -Don Stoneman

© copyright 1998 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back

Replacements pay off

BY DON STONEMAN

Jack McCoubrey, Lloyd and Ken Mitchell and Ross Proctor each prefer different colours of cattle. But they all have something in common: selling replacement heifers to commercial cow-calf operators who can market all of their offspring to feedlots or feed them out and sell them to packers.

Buying replacements can be a boon to small beef herd operators, says Joanne Handley, Fergus-based livestock adviser. Trying to raise a handful of replacement heifers every year may cost the commercial operator more money than simply buying them in, she says.

The replacement raiser concentrates on breeding in maternal characteristics: milking, mothering ability and reproductive ability. The commercial operator who buys these heifers mates them to a sire chosen for growth characteristics to meet his feedlot buyer or packer customer's needs.

Ross Proctor has been raising purebred Shorthorns at Brussels for years. But Proctor learned the benefits of heterosis, a major gain through cross-breeding, while in the pig business. Decades ago the standard became a York-Landrace female bred to a Duroc or Hampshire boar. A simple cross-breeding program resulted in one more pig per litter, says Ross Proctor, a tangible benefit right from the start.

Ten years ago Proctor started doing the same with his cow herd, crossing his purebred Shorthorns with Horned Herefords bought in Western Canada.

"We don't like horns, but we like horned Hereford cattle out of Alberta," Proctor says. They are a good mix, since they can winter outside in the bush, a favourite Bodmin Farms practice.

Researchers have reported that there can be a 30-per cent gain in desirable traits such as growth by crossing unrelated strains of cattle. Even if the gains are half that, the benefits "are too good to be passed up," Proctor says.

A 10- to 15-per cent increase in productivity in a purebred herd takes a long time, he says, while stressing that the growing trend toward carefully planned cross-breeding in the beef business is no slight on the purebred industry. "Good cross-breds come from well-bred purebreds," Proctor asserts.

Jack McCoubrey, Liahn Cattle, London, has also taken the cross-breeding route. McCoubrey raises a number of different crosses, using Red Angus, Gelbveih, Blonde d'Aquitaine, Charolais and South Devon. It's possible to lower the birthweight for easier calving as well as increase growth rates, while paying attention to carcass characteristics, he says.

McCoubrey measures weight gain, and ultrasounds for ribeye area and marbling. His cattle are scored using a plus system for Expected Progeny Difference (EPD) on birth weight, preweaning gain, maternal milk and post weaning gain. Hip height and frame size are also measured.

Lloyd and Ken Mitchell, featured in Farm & Country August 3, have been aiming to raise what Lloyd calls "middle of the road cattle." They raise Simmental cows bred to Red Angus bulls in Grey county. They sell replacements to farmers who want to use a terminal Charolais sire and market all their heifer and steer calves. This year they sold about 120 heifers. One customer alone takes 25 to 30 heifers a year, Lloyd says.

His goal is to produce a Grade A carcass and what he calls "acceptable cows for our environment." Cows have to be able to milk for two months on stored feed before they go on pasture, he says. They winter outside and get access to a barn for calving.

Mitchell calves are sold through the Bio-link program to Better Beef at Guelph. They are fed to maximum carcass size, 750 pounds at 13 to 14 months, without pushing through the 800 pound mark that attracts discounts. Carcasses weighing only 650 pounds just don't bring a return, he says.

"I'm not excited about marbling until the packers start paying for it," Lloyd says. "It's important that our cows be middle of the road," he says. "You can move around a bit."

© copyright 1998 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back