Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4.
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4.
J Dairy Sci. 2020 Dec;103(12):11653-11658. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18299. Epub 2020 Oct 15.
Cauterization by hot iron and application of caustic paste are 2 common methods of disbudding calves. In this study, we compared the affective experience of these 2 procedures on young dairy calves using conditioned place aversion. Male dairy calves (n = 14; 7 ± 2 d old) were disbudded by both thermal and chemical methods (1 horn bud at a time, 48 h apart). Calves received treatments in pens made visually distinct with either red squares or blue triangles on the walls. Calves were restricted to these treatment pens for 6 h following disbudding. For all treatments, calves received a sedative (xylazine, 0.2 mg/kg), local anesthetic (lidocaine, 5 mL), and analgesic (meloxicam, 0.5 mg/kg). Calves were then tested for conditioned place aversion at 48, 72, and 96 h after their last treatment. During tests, calves were placed in a neutral pen connected to both treatment pens where they had previously been disbudded. Time spent in each treatment pen was recorded until calves chose to lie down for 1 min (latency to lie down: 31.0 ± 8.6 min). During the first test (48 h after last disbudding), calves spent more time in the pen associated with hot-iron disbudding compared with what would be expected by chance (intercept: 73.5%, 95% CI: 56.5, 90.5) and fewer calves lay down in the caustic paste pen than in the hot-iron pen (3 vs. 10 lying events). No evidence of preference for the hot-iron pen was found in the following test sessions (72 and 96 h since last disbudding). These results suggest that calves initially remember caustic paste disbudding as a more negative experience than hot-iron disbudding, even with the use of sedation, local anesthesia, and analgesia.
烫烙和苛性糊剂烧烙是两种常见的去角方法。在这项研究中,我们使用条件位置厌恶来比较这两种程序对年轻奶牛犊牛的影响体验。雄性奶牛犊牛(n = 14;7 ± 2 d 龄)通过热和化学方法(一次 1 个角芽,间隔 48 h)去角。犊牛在墙壁上有红色正方形或蓝色三角形的视觉上有区别的围栏中接受处理。去角后,犊牛被限制在这些处理围栏中 6 h。对于所有处理,犊牛接受镇静剂(二甲苯胺噻嗪,0.2 mg/kg)、局部麻醉剂(利多卡因,5 mL)和镇痛药(美洛昔康,0.5 mg/kg)。然后在最后一次治疗后 48、72 和 96 h 对犊牛进行条件位置厌恶测试。在测试期间,犊牛被放置在一个与之前去角的两个处理围栏相连的中性围栏中。记录在每个处理围栏中花费的时间,直到犊牛选择躺下 1 分钟(躺下潜伏期:31.0 ± 8.6 min)。在第一次测试(最后一次去角后 48 h)中,与偶然情况相比,犊牛在与热铁去角相关的围栏中花费了更多的时间(截距:73.5%,95%CI:56.5,90.5),并且在苛性糊剂围栏中躺下的犊牛比在热铁围栏中躺下的犊牛少(3 次与 10 次躺下事件)。在随后的测试(最后一次去角后 72 和 96 h)中,没有发现对热铁围栏的偏好证据。这些结果表明,即使使用镇静剂、局部麻醉剂和镇痛药,犊牛最初也会将苛性糊剂去角记忆为比热铁去角更负面的体验。