1,523
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review Article

Calf disbudding – animal welfare considerations

, &
Pages 616-623 | Received 28 Nov 2022, Accepted 26 Sep 2023, Published online: 10 Oct 2023

ABSTRACT

Disbudding, removal of the horn buds, is performed for economic and practical reasons: to prevent bullying and injury to other animals (with implications for productivity and carcass damage, respectively) and human safety during handling. Mitigation of pain associated with the disbudding of calves is necessary to limit the pain-stress response that induces altered behavioural and physiologic states. The most common recommendation in Animal Welfare Guidelines is to disbud calves before they attain 2 months of age. From birth to 2 months of age the horn bud is not attached to the skull, which makes the removal of the horn bud and adjacent cells easier. The objectives of this review are to describe (1) the different methods of disbudding, (2) the pain responses associated with each of those methods and (3) how age and pain mitigation strategies affect those responses.

1. Introduction

Disbudding involves the removal of immature horn tissue (horn ‘buds’ growing from the skin), from which the horns of the animal subsequently develop (Mellor and Stafford Citation2004; Bates et al. Citation2016; Adcock et al. Citation2019, Citation2020; Duffield and Winder Citation2022; Reedman et al. Citation2022; Schoiswohl et al. Citation2022). After approximately 2 months of age, the horn buds attach to the skull. The removal of the horns after this age is called dehorning (AVMA Citation2014). There is evidence that disbudding is less painful than amputation dehorning (Petrie et al. Citation1996; Huxley and Whay Citation2006; Stilwell et al. Citation2007; Hokkanen et al. Citation2015; Moggy et al. Citation2017). For this reason, disbudding is preferred compared to dehorning from a welfare point of view. Research conducted by Dwane et al. (Citation2013) using focus groups reported that some Irish beef farmers were reluctant to use local anaesthetic (LA) and opted to disbud calves less than 14 days old in order to avoid using it, even when the horn bud had not erupted. This may indicate a lack of knowledge concerning aspects of the disbudding procedure and the application of LA. Research indicates that young calves may be equally or possibly more sensitive to pain than older calves (FRAME Citation2001), supporting the farmers’ opinion that older calves are better able to withstand the pain of disbudding than younger calves and raising questions about the validity of age-related anaesthetic guidelines. These age limits, where specified, range from 3 weeks to 6 months. Legal provisions in other jurisdictions outside Ireland show a range of age limits set for disbudding (). There is also evidence to suggest that disbudding near birth does not improve welfare outcomes and there is some evidence to suggest it may produce a generalized long-term increase in pain sensitivity (Tucker Citation2018). In accordance with EFSA opinions (Citation2006, Citation2012), many countries surveyed now require the use of LA for disbudding, irrespective of age. The 2009 ALCASDE report recommended that disbudding must be done by trained personnel and that specific techniques must involve pain alleviation using anaesthetic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. However, almost as many other countries allow disbudding without LA for some of or the entire allowable age limit.

Table 1. Legislation concerning the use of anaesthesia for disbudding calves.

The scientific community and producers worldwide (Huxley and Whay Citation2006; Hokkanen et al. Citation2015; Moggy et al. Citation2017; Reedman et al. Citation2022; Roder et al. Citation2022; Schoiswohl et al. Citation2022) agree that disbudding is a painful procedure, regardless of the age of the calf and recommends the use of a local anaesthetic in combination with an analgesic as a measure to alleviate pain during this procedure (reviewed by Herskin and Nielsen Citation2018; Winder, Bauman et al. Citation2018; Reedman et al. Citation2022; Roder et al. Citation2022; Schoiswohl et al. Citation2022). Martin et al. (Citation2022) recently reported that the administration of bupivacaine liposome suspension as a cornual nerve block at the time of dehorning was as effective at controlling pain as a multimodal approach of lidocaine and meloxicam.

Legislation concerning the use of pain relief during and post-disbudding varies among countries. While the use of anaesthetics is mandatory during the disbudding of calves at any age in New Zealand, Belgium and the United Kingdom, calves can be disbudded without the use of anaesthetic up to a certain, specified age in Australia, Germany and Ireland (). Cozzi et al. (Citation2015) reported in their survey that pain relief protocols have shown to be inconsistent within and between EU Member States. The authors suggested that an introduction of transnational legal standards concerning disbudding and dehorning should help to a harmonization of the current inconsistent drug protocols observed within and between countries (Cozzi et al. Citation2015). According to a large European survey carried out in 2008 (ALCASDE Citation2009), 40% of beef farms (which corresponded to approximately 40% of beef cattle) kept bulls without horns. Of this population, 63% were disbudded (52% of these by hot iron and 48% by caustic paste) and 35% were dehorned. About 2% of the beef cattle population were from polled breeds. The legislation concerning the use of anaesthesia for disbudding in cattle varies considerably among different countries within the EU and internationally, depending on the method involved and age of the animal ().

2. Reasons for disbudding of calves

Removal of the horns in cattle is carried out to reduce the risk of injuries to humans, and of other animals in the herd (Menke et al. Citation1999; Knierim et al. Citation2015). It also reduces the incidence of carcass wastage due to bruising (Meischke et al. Citation1974). Hornless animals also require less space at the feed bunk in confined systems. Cattle with horns are more difficult to handle in yards and chutes; require three times more space at a feed trough and during transport (McMeekan et al. Citation1999); exhibit fewer aggressive behaviours associated with individual dominance (Bouissiou Citation1972); and may suffer financial penalties on sale. In general, there is no obligation to dehorn cattle in Europe. However, in some Member States (including UK, Ireland and Austria) animals that are presented for sale at auction markets must be dehorned (ALCASDE Citation2009). According to the Transport Regulation (2005) it is illegal to mix horned and non-horned animals during transport unless they have been raised in compatible groups and dehorned cattle are often a requirement of the slaughter industry. In Ireland, it is prohibited to sell or export horned animals under Statutory Instrument ((S.I.) No. 224 of Citation2014 (Animal Health and Welfare (Restriction on Horned Cattle) (No. 2) Regulations 2014)) other than under certain very limited conditions (Animal Health and Welfare Act Citation2013).

3. Disbudding methods

The horn bud-producing cells (corium) and the surrounding tissue need to be destroyed or removed to prevent horn re-growth (Vickers et al. Citation2005). Since the horn bud is not attached to the skull until after 2 months of age, horn buds can be removed easily without opening the frontal sinus. Therefore, disbudding is preferred compared with dehorning of older animals. The most common methods of disbudding are cautery (thermal or chemical) or physical. Thermal (hot-iron) or chemical (caustic paste) cauterization destroys the horn-producing cells, while physical method removes them (Vickers et al. Citation2005). The choice of method depends on the current legislation and farmers’ experience and preference.

3.1. Hot-iron disbudding (thermal cauterization)

Cautery or hot-iron disbudding is recommended by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and other authority organizations, and is the only method of disbudding allowed in Ireland under Statutory Instrument (S.I.) No. 127/2014 – Animal Health and Welfare (Operations and Procedures) (No. 2) Regulations 2014, which permit disbudding of calves up to 28 days old by this method. Hot-iron disbudding is the most common disbudding method, reported to be used in 71% of the farms in Europe (Cozzi et al. Citation2015). Using this procedure, the concave tip of the disbudding iron, heated to over 600°C, is applied to the base of the horn bud for approximately 10 s, causing the destruction of the horn bud and generative tissues (Weaver et al. Citation2005). The heat cauterizes the blood vessels around the wound; no bleeding should occur if the procedure is properly done. Hot-iron disbudding causes third-degree burns where the hot iron is applied and first and second-degree burns on surrounding tissues (Taschke and Folsch Citation1997). It is suggested that excessive heat applied during hot-iron disbudding could damage the underlying bone (Kihurani et al. Citation1989). Besides that, disbudding via cauterization may be less stressful compared with scoop disbudding because nociceptors are destroyed by heat and pain perception is consequently reduced (Petrie et al. Citation1996). Electrical and butane hot-iron disbudding devices are available for this procedure.

3.2 Caustic paste (Chemical cauterization)

A caustic paste containing sodium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide is applied to the horn bud to damage the horn-producing cells. The damage continues as long as the active chemicals are in contact with tissue (Vickers et al. Citation2005). Dehorning with caustic paste induces pain, but the pain is reported to be less than that caused by the hot iron, even when using lidocaine (Vickers et al. Citation2005). Despite the lack of robust scientific evidence, caustic paste disbudding has been suggested to be one of the least painful methods for horn bud removal (Vasseur et al. Citation2010). However, the potential longer-term welfare consequences of this method (i.e. inflammatory pain, healing time, horn regrowth, injuries from chemical run-off) are unknown and, to date, few studies have found a way to mitigate the acute pain response associated with caustic paste (Stilwell et al. Citation2009; Vasseur et al. Citation2014; Winder, Bauman et al. Citation2018). Caustic paste was reported to be used in only 26% of farms in Europe (Cozzi et al. Citation2015) while a study by Ede et al. (Citation2020) suggest that calves initially remember caustic paste disbudding as a more negative experience than hot-iron disbudding, even with the use of sedation, local anaesthesia and analgesia. While there is very limited research examining pain mitigation of calves disbudded with caustic paste compared to similar work in cautery, the current evidence supports the use of local anaesthesia combined with NSAID analgesia as effective for reducing pain when disbudding using caustic paste (Reedman et al. Citation2020).

3.3 Clove oil or isoeugenol

Clove essential oil (Caryophylli aetheroleum) has anaesthetic, analgesic, antibacterial and cytotoxic properties mainly associated with its principal active component eugenol (Chaieb et al. Citation2007). Similar properties have also been shown for the eugenol-isomer isoeugenol. The cytotoxicity of eugenol was reported to be 1 order of magnitude lower than that of isoeugenol in-vitro (CC50: eugenol, 0.395 mM; isoeugenol, 0.0523 mM); and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production was induced significantly by isoeugenol, but not by eugenol (Atsumi et al. Citation2005). Due to the combination of cytotoxic and anaesthetic effects, clove oil and isoeugenol have been investigated as an alternative to hot-iron disbudding in goats and calves (Sutherland et al. Citation2013, Citation2002; Molaei et al. Citation2014, Citation2015; Frahm et al. Citation2020; Juffinger et al. Citation2021). Still Brooks et al. (Citation2021) reported that clove oil injection was associated with several unexpected and severe complications in kid goats including unintended tissue necrosis, temporary paresis, skull defects, meningitis and death. The general consensus in the literature is that neither the injection of clove oil or isoeugenol was as effective as the use of a hot iron in preventing horn growth and the injection of clove oil was not recommended. In agreement, a recent study by Schoiswohl et al. (Citation2022) reported that while alternative treatments (especially isoeugenol) may cause less severe tissue damage than hot-iron disbudding, the authors recommended that further research is necessary to optimize the injection volume and technique. To our knowledge, no study has investigated the welfare implications or long-term consequences of isoeugenol as an alternative to hot-iron disbudding.

3.4. Scoop dehorning (Physical removal)

This method involves the physical removal of the horn buds using knives, a scoop or tubes. It is important that the corium and a complete ring of hair surrounding the horn bud should also be removed to prevent horn regrowth (AVMA Citation2014). The method is reported to be used by 3% of European farmers (Cozzi et al. Citation2015).

4. When to disbud calves

Animal Welfare Guidelines recommend the disbudding of calves before they attain 2 months of age (EFSA Citation2012). As previously mentioned, from birth to 2 months of age the horn bud is not attached to the skull, which makes the removal of the horn bud and adjacent cells easier. The Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock from the United Kingdom recommend that disbudding should take place before calves are 2 months old and ideally as soon as the horn bud becomes visible (FAWC Citation2012; DEFRA Citation2013). Other organizations for animal welfare from Ireland, Australia, recommend disbudding calves as young as possible, without specifying the optimum age (FAWAC Citation2003, Citation2008; Animal Health Australia Citation2016). Even though there is a general recommendation to disbud calves before they attain 2 months of age, there is no agreement on when calves should be disbudded within the 2 month period. In addition, regulatory organizations permit painful procedures without pharmacological anaesthesia or analgesia in animals under a certain age, even though there is much evidence that the use of pain relief is efficient and should be used when disbudding calves (reviewed by Coetzee et al. Citation2012; Guatteo et al. Citation2012; Coetzee Citation2013; Stock et al. Citation2013; Stock and Coetzee Citation2015; Herskin and Nielsen Citation2018; Winder, Miltenburg et al. Citation2018).

5. Impact of disbudding on calf welfare

Tissue damage caused by disbudding results in the activation and release of intracellular contents from damaged cells, inflammatory cells and nerve fibres (Anderson and Muir Citation2005). In addition, physiologic, neuroendocrine and behavioural changes indicatives of pain and distress are observed following disbudding (McMeekan et al. Citation1998; Vickers et al. Citation2005). Increased levels of circulating corticosteroids, such as cortisol, reflecting changes in the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis are commonly detected after disbudding. Plasma cortisol concentrations increase 30–60 min after disbudding and return to baseline values approximately 6–8 h after the procedure (Wohlt et al. Citation1994; McMeekan et al. Citation1997; McMeekan et al. Citation1998; Mellor et al. Citation2000; Stewart et al. Citation2008; Stewart et al. Citation2009). Wohlt et al. (Citation1994) reported plasma cortisol concentrations of 21.9 ng/ml for 3-week-old Holstein calves that were dehorned using an electrically-heated instrument, in comparison to 11.3 ng/ml for control animals. Similarly, a study of electrical dehorning of 8-week-old calves, by Laden et al. (Citation1985), found increased plasma cortisol concentrations compared to controls, although there were no effect of dehorning on blood packed cell volume or plasma glucose. Morisse et al. (Citation1995) compared electrical and caustic methods of dehorning of 4- to 8-week-old calves, each with and without local anaesthesia. Both methods of dehorning increased plasma cortisol and produced changes in behaviour for about 4 hours, including restlessness, head-shaking and decreases in social behaviour. There were no differences in plasma cortisol between electrical and caustic dehorning methods, but calves dehorned using the electrically heated instrument tended to exhibit less intense behavioural reactions. The provision of local anaesthesia reduced cortisol in calves dehorned using caustic paste, and the intensity of the behavioural responses in both the caustic and electrical dehorned treatments. Taschke and Folsch (Citation1993) identified particular behavioural patterns that were exhibited to a much greater extent by electrically dehorned calves in comparison with sham-dehorned calves. These behavioural patterns included rearing, tail-wagging and attempted escape during treatment, and subsequent head scratching, head shaking, standing with the head lowered and suppression of normal behavioural activity, which Taschke and Folsch (Citation1993) classed as ‘depression’.

Postoperative behavioural indicators of pain, such as head rubbing, head shaking, ear flicking, tail flicking, increased numbers of transitions between lying and rising and reduced rumination were also reported following disbudding (Faulkner and Weary Citation2000; Sutherland et al. Citation2002, Citation2013; Stilwell et al. Citation2007). There is also evidence that hot-iron disbudding reduces play behaviour (Mintline et al. Citation2013), and produces a negative change in emotional state of dairy calves (Neave et al. Citation2013).

Disbudding performed without pain mitigation is viewed as a key welfare issue. Administration of local anaesthetics is reported to reduce the initial increase in plasma cortisol concentration and behaviours associated with the immediate and postoperative pain response (Morisse et al. Citation1995; Sylvester et al. Citation1998, Citation2004; Graf and Senn Citation1999; McMeekan et al. Citation1999). The use of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) in addition to local anaesthesia has generally been found to be advantageous (Faulkner and Weary Citation2000; Milligan et al. Citation2004; Stilwell et al. Citation2009; Heinrich et al. Citation2010; Allen et al. Citation2013; Stock et al. Citation2016). Reductions in plasma cortisol, pain behaviours and pressure sensitivity were reported when NSAID was administered in combination with a local anaesthetic at 3, 4 and 6 h post-disbudding (reviewed by Stock et al. Citation2013; Winder, Bauman et al. Citation2018). Therefore, the use of local anaesthetic combined with an NSAID is recommended best practice for pain mitigation for cautery disbudding. However, as highlighted by Winder, Miltenburg et al. (Citation2018), studies addressing the magnitude or duration of NSAID treatment are very heterogeneous. Therefore, it is still difficult to draw specific recommendations concerning the use of analgesia during and post disbudding.

The genetic selection for polled cattle may be a long-term solution to reduce the need for disbudding (Spurlock et al. Citation2014). Although polled genetics have been introduced for beef breeds, only 4.9% of European farms have polled cattle (Cozzi et al. Citation2015). Therefore, disbudding and dehorning are still performed both in beef and dairy farms in Europe; 81% of the dairy, 47% of the beef and 68% of the suckler cows are dehorned (Cozzi et al. Citation2015).

6. Disbudding practices and use of pain relief

A European study reported that 81% of the dairy, 47% of the beef and 68% of the suckler production systems have disbudded/dehorned animals, and a low prevalence of polled animals especially in the dairy cattle sector (Cozzi et al. Citation2015). The study also found that only 57.2%, 37.9% and 35.3% of the dairy, beef and suckler systems, respectively reported to use some form of medication prior to disbudding (Cozzi et al. Citation2015). The authors did not provide the breakdown of medication according to the use of sedation, local anaesthesia, analgesia or a combination of the main treatments. The administration of an NSAID alone is reported to lower cortisol concentrations earlier than if no pain control is provided but did not eliminate the cortisol peak reported in the first 30 min after disbudding (Glynn et al. Citation2013; Stock and Coetzee Citation2015; Reedman et al. Citation2020; Reedman et al. Citation2022). It was also reported that when both local anaesthetic and NSAID were administered to calves prior to disbudding, the acute and delayed cortisol responses were eliminated (Stilwell et al. Citation2009; Winder, Bauman et al. Citation2018; Reedman et al. Citation2020, Citation2022). While the local anaesthetic is effective at reducing acute pain (the first cortisol peak) for 1–3 h after disbudding, the NSAID works to prevent the secondary peak, which usually occurs 4 h after disbudding, through anti-inflammatory properties. However, Winder, Miltenburg et al. (Citation2018) in their meta-analysis found that in some cases, the cortisol response of calves provided with both medications did not differ from the responses of sham-disbudded control calves. The use of local anaesthesia and sedation is partly associated with the operator, as in some countries use of anaesthetics or sedatives are legally restricted to veterinary practitioners. Also, the availability of drugs for farmer use is regulated differently in various countries, so that farmers may or may not have access to local anaesthetics, NSAIDS or sedatives. Stafford and Mellor (Citation2011) highlighted that the administration of a cornual block and an analgesic are simple procedures of which, in communities of smaller farmers, a local veterinary technician can easily be trained to do it. Therefore, in countries where the provision of pain relief is mandatory for such procedures, legislators and regulators have made other regulatory adjustments to allow non-veterinarians to administer such drugs and carry out such procedures (Stafford and Mellor Citation2011; Spoolder et al. Citation2016). In 2015, the stockman was reported to be the main person in charge of calf disbudding in Europe (72% of hot iron disbudding, 92% of caustic paste and 60% of scoop disbudding) (Cozzi et al. Citation2015).

The legislation in Ireland permits disbudding of a bovine that has not attained the age of 28 days by farmers, without a presence of a veterinary practitioner (S.I. No. Citation127 of Citation2014). In any case, Irish farmers must use anaesthesia or analgesia (with a veterinary prescription) when disbudding calves between 15 and 28 days of age. Disbudding of calves older than 28 days must be performed by a veterinary practitioner and the use of local anaesthesia and analgesia is mandatory for the procedure (Statutory Instruments (S.I.) No. 127 and 107 of Animal health and welfare regulations, 2014). Adrenacaine (procaine with adrenaline) is the only authorized local anaesthetic for use in calves, by farmers with prescription, for disbudding in Ireland (Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA) Citation2015). The presence of adrenaline in the composition of adrenacaine may prolong the duration of action of the drug (French and Sharp Citation2012). However, evidence supporting the efficacy of adrenacaine as a local anaesthetic during the disbudding of calves is limited. A study by Thomsen et al. (Citation2021) reported that 42% of calves, having received local anaesthetic and disbudded with a hot iron, showed at least 1 of 3 behaviours (getting up, kicking, or lifting head), which the authors suggest may have been due to the type of LA administered, the time interval from LA administration to disbudding (range: 2–35 min) and the tip diameter (23 or 33 mm) of the hot-iron disbudder.

7. Age at disbudding and horn bud size

Most of the recommendations and legislations concerning when the disbudding should be performed are based on the age of the calves. There is variation in the suggested upper age limits for disbudding of calves ranging from 2 to 8 weeks of age. These age limits are not based on empirical evidence, but rather on opinion related to the physical development of horns in calves and that the horn buds become attached to the underlying periosteum at approximately 2 months of age. Particularly, the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock from the United Kingdom recommends that disbudding should take place ideally as soon as you can start to see the horn bud (DEFRA Citation2013). In general, the size (diameter and height) of the horn bud is a visual aspect which farmers use to guide when to perform disbudding.

There is limited information in the literature on age at cautery disbudding for suckler-bred beef calves with most studies reporting on cautery disbudding of dairy-bred calves. More recently, Marquette et al. (Citation2021) reported that the mean (SD) age of Holstein–Friesian male calves at disbudding was 37 (10) days while the corresponding ages for female and male suckler beef calves were 26 (8) (Charolais), 28 (9) (Limousin), 23 (6) (Simmental) days and 24 (7) (Charolais), 26 (7) (Limousin) and 23 (6) (Simmental) days, respectively. Stanek et al. (Citation2018) reported a median age of 20 days (2.9 weeks) for dairy calves on Czech farms; Vasseur et al. (Citation2010) reported a median age of 6.4 weeks in Canada; Gottardo et al. (Citation2011) reported a mean of 4.6 weeks in Italy. The age range for disbudding reported by Stanek et al. (Citation2018) on surveyed Czech farms ranged from 3 to 68 days of age. A possible reason why calves were disbudded before 28 days of age on Czech farms is that legislation allows the disbudding of calves without the use of pain relief for up to 28 days. There is variation across studies in the percentage of calves reported to be disbudded before 28 days of age. For example, Stanek et al. (Citation2018) reported that 63.3% of Czech calves were disbudded which is greater than those reported in other studies: 21% in Canada (Misch et al. Citation2007), 25.7% in the US (Fulwider et al. Citation2008), 17% in southern Brazil (Hotzel et al. Citation2014) and lower than those reported (95%) in Finland (Hokkanen et al. Citation2015).

A number of studies have focused on the acute pain response to cautery disbudding (AVMA Citation2014, Citation2018; Winder et al. Citation2016; Winder, Bauman et al. Citation2018; Adcock and Tucker Citation2018, Citation2020, Citation2021; Herskin and Nielsen Citation2018) and of the benefits of providing local anaesthesia and systemic analgesia (Allen et al. Citation2013; Stock et al. Citation2013, Citation2016; Bates et al. Citation2015, Citation2016) at the time of disbudding. Adcock and Tucker (Citation2018) reported that calves disbudded at 3 days versus 35 days of age were more sensitive to pain after disbudding. Similar findings of increased sensitivity are reported by Casoni et al. (Citation2019) for up to 14 weeks post-disbudding of 7 and 28 days old Holstein calves. However, while local anaesthesia in addition to NSAID analgesia are of benefit in mitigating the pain-related disbudding behaviours, few studies have investigated the responses of contrasting breeds, sex and age of calves on recommendations of age-related anaesthetic and analgesic protocols. Caray et al. (Citation2015) reported some effects of age, breed or sex on the behaviour of calves that were observed between 2 and 7 h after disbudding (for example 4-week calves and Charolais calves were more active than their 1-week-old Holstein counterparts), but found no interactions between age, breed, sex and treatment medication.

Marquette et al. (Citation2021) in their investigation on the effect of age, breed and sex on horn bud size of dairy-bred and suckler-bred calves at the time of disbudding, reported that horn bud diameter and height were very variable across breeds which suggest that most of the variation is not explained by age. The research findings also indicated that the association between age and horn bud size was very weak in dairy-bred and suckler-bred calves. The horn bud size (diameter and height) was greater in dairy-bred calves than suckler-bred beef calves at the time of disbudding, and male suckler-bred calves had greater horn bud size than female counterparts (Marquette et al. Citation2021). The authors suggested that the variation observed, at least for the suckler-bred calves, could be attributed to calf sex since male suckler-bred calves had a greater horn bud height (29.1%) and diameter (8.8%) compared with female suckler calves at time of disbudding (Marquette et al. Citation2021). However, this finding is not unexpected for male calves as there is general agreement that the main evolutionary benefit of males having larger horns than females relates to intra-sexual competition for mates (e.g. Preston et al. Citation2003; Bro-Jørgensen Citation2007; Knierim et al. Citation2015). The implications of the findings by Marquette et al. (Citation2021) were that calves should be disbudded while horn development is still at the bud stage and when the bud is large enough to be easily palpable/visible, but not too large that disbudding could lead to tissue trauma.

8. Conclusion

The degree of tissue damage associated with disbudding is influenced by the stage of development of the horn bud, for example, in younger calves the burning of the vessels surrounding the horn bud is sufficient, whereas the whole bud needs to be removed (by levering it out from the side) when the horn is further developed. Despite the visibility of the horn bud being the characteristic normally adopted by farmers when selecting animals for disbudding, most recommendations are based on the age of the calf. A calf should be old enough to have a horn bud, but not so old that the horns are too large when they are disbudded as the procedure could result in severe tissue trauma. Furthermore, depending on the procedure, calves with greater horn bud diameter at the time of disbudding may have more tissue damage which could lead to prolonged healing time and prolonged stress. In addition, the size of horn bud at the time of disbudding and that of the diameter of the disbudder tip are important considerations that need to be addressed in view of healing time. There are also limited studies on the time interval from the administration of LA to the hot-iron disbudding procedure, therefore further research is necessary to assess the pain responses of calves undergoing disbudding and the efficacy of the anaesthesia. This information would be useful to guide more specific recommendations on calf disbudding.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

  • Adcock SJ, Tucker CB. 2020. Conditioned place preference reveals ongoing pain in calves 3 weeks after disbudding. Sci Rep. 10:3849. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-60260-7.
  • Adcock SJJ, Cruz DM, Tucker CB. 2020. Behavioral changes in calves 11 days after cautery disbudding: effect of local anesthesia. J Dairy Sci. 103:8518–8525. doi:10.3168/jds.2020-18337.
  • Adcock SJJ, Tucker CB. 2018. The effect of disbudding age on healing and pain sensitivity in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 101:10361–10373. doi:10.3168/jds.2018-14987.
  • Adcock SJJ, Tucker CB. 2021. Injury alters motivational trade-offs in calves during the healing period. Sci Rep. 11:6888. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-86313-z.
  • Adcock SJJ, Vieira SK, Alvarez L, Tucker CB. 2019. Iron and laterality effects on healing of cautery disbudding wounds in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 102:10163–10172. doi:10.3168/jds.2018-16121.
  • ALCASDE. 2009. Appendix 20: Report on dehorning practices across EU member states. http://www.vuzv.sk/DB-Welfare/telata/calves_alcasde_D-2-2-1.pdf.
  • Allen KA, Coetzee JF, Edwards-Callaway LN, Glynn H, Dockweiler J, KuKanich B, Lin H, Wang C, Fraccaro E, Jones M. 2013. The effect of timing of oral meloxicam administration on physiological responses in calves after cautery dehorning with local anesthesia. J Dairy Sci. 96:5194–5205. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-6251.
  • American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). 2014. Literature Review on the welfare implications of the dehorning and disbudding of cattle. https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/Welfare-Implications-of-Dehorning-and-Disbudding-Cattle.aspx.
  • American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). 2018. American Veterinary Medical Association castration and dehorning of cattle. https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Castration-and-Dehorning-of-Cattle.aspx.
  • Anderson DE, Muir WW. 2005. Pain management in ruminants. Vet Clin North Am: Food Anim Pract. 21:19–31. doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2004.12.008.
  • Animal Health and Welfare Act. 2013. Animal health and welfare act 2013 - Part 3: animal welfare. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305440310003213.
  • Animal Health Australia. 2016. Australian animal welfare standards and guidelines for cattle. www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au.
  • Atsumi T, Fujisawa S, Tonosaki K. 2005. A comparative study of the antioxidant/prooxidant activities of eugenol and isoeugenol with various concentrations and oxidation conditions. Toxicology in Vitro. 19(8):1025–1033. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2005.04.012.
  • Bates A, Eder P, Laven R. 2015. Effect of analgesia and anti-inflammatory treatment on weight gain and milk intake of dairy calves after disbudding. N Z Vet J. 63:153–157. doi:10.1080/00480169.2014.982739.
  • Bates AJ, Laven R, Chapple F, Weeks D. 2016. The effect of different combinations of local anaesthesia, sedative and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on daily growth rates of dairy calves after disbudding. N Z Vet J. 64:282–287. doi:10.1080/00480169.2016.1196626.
  • Bouissiou MF. 1972. Influence of body weight and presence of horns on social rank in domestic cattle. Anim Behav. 20:474–477. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(72)80011-3.
  • Bro-Jørgensen J. 2007. The intensity of sexual selection predicts weapon size in male bovids. Evolution. 61:1316–1326. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00111.x.
  • Caray D, deBoyerdes Roches A, Frouja S, Andanson S, Veissier I. 2015. Hot-iron disbudding: stress responses and behavior of 1- and 4-week-old calves receiving anti-inflammatory analgesia without or with sedation using xylazine. Livest Sci. 179:22–28. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.013.
  • Casoni D, Mirra A, Suter MR, Gutzwiller A, Spadavecchia C. 2019. Can disbudding of calves (one versus four weeks of age) induce chronic pain? Physiol Behav. 199:47–55. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.11.010.
  • Chaieb K, Hajlaoui H, Zmantar T, Ben Kahla-Nakbi A, Rouabhia M, Mahdouani K, Bakhrouf A. 2007. The chemical composition and biological activity of clove essential oil, Eugenia caryophyllata (Syzigium aromaticum L. Myrtaceae): a short review. Phytother Res. 21:501–506. doi:10.1002/ptr.2124.
  • Coetzee JF. 2013. A review of analgesic compounds used in food animals in the United States. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 29:11–28. doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.11.008.
  • Coetzee JF, Mosher RA, KuKanich B, Gehring R, Robert B, Brandon RJ, White BJ. 2012. Pharmacokinetics and effect of intravenous meloxicam in weaned Holstein calves following scoop dehorning without local anesthesia. BMC Vet Res. 8:153. doi:10.1186/1746-6148-8-153.
  • Cozzi G, Gottardo F, Brscic M, Contiero B, Irrgang N, Knierim U, Pentelescu O, Windig JJ, Mirabito L, Eveillard FK, et al. 2015. Dehorning of cattle in the EU Member States: a quantitative survey of the current practices. Livest Sci. 179:4–11. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.011.
  • Daanje E. 2013. Dutch produced beef, the best beef. https://vleesveenet.nl/system/files/documenten/boek/dutch_produced_beef_the_best_beef_-_market_research_lto_juni_2013.pdf.
  • DEFRA. 2013. Code of recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Cattle. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69368/pb7949-cattle-code-030407.pdf.
  • Duffield TF, Winder CB. 2022. Alleviating pain in neonatal procedures. In: Paul L.H. McSweeney, John P. McNamara, editors. Encyclopedia of dairy sciences. 3rd ed. Academic Press; p. 207–211. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-818766-1.00039-8.
  • Dwane AM, More SJ, Blake M, McKenzie K, Hanlon AJ. 2013. Farmers’ self-reported perceptions and behavioural impacts of a welfare scheme for suckler beef cattle in Ireland. Ir Vet J. 66:1–11. doi:10.1186/2046-0481-66-1.
  • Ede T, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. 2020. Conditioned place aversion of caustic paste and hot-iron disbudding in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 103:11653–11658. doi:10.3168/jds.2020-18299.
  • EFSA. 2006. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related with the risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems [WWW Document]. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/366.htm.
  • EFSA. 2012. Scientific opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems [WWW Document]. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2669.htm.
  • Faulkner PM, Weary DM. 2000. Reducing pain after dehorning in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 83:2037–2041. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75084-3.
  • FAWAC. 2003. Animal welfare guidelines for dairy farmers. Dublin. http://www.fawac.ie/media/fawac/content/publications/animalwelfare/AnimalWelfareGuidelineforDairyFarmers2003.pdf.
  • FAWAC. 2008. Animal welfare guidelines for beef farmers. Available from: http://www.fawac.ie/media/fawac/content/publications/animalwelfare/RevisedAnimalWelfareGuidelineforBeefFarmers2008.pdf.
  • FAWC. 2012. Five freedoms. Web Page. Available from: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121010012427/http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm.
  • Frahm S, Di Giminiani P, Stanitznig A, Schoiswohl J, Krametter-Frötscher R, Wittek T, Waiblinger S. 2020. Nociceptive threshold of calves and goat kids undergoing injection of clove Oil or isoeugenol for disbudding. Animals (Basel). 10(7):1228. doi:10.3390/ani10071228.
  • FRAME/RSM. 2001. Conference on: Pain: Nature and management in man and animals: 30/31 March 2000; London, UK. Edited by: Soulsby L, Morton DB. 2001, See chapter by Maria Fitzgerald.
  • French J, Sharp LM. 2012. Local anaesthetics. Annal Roy Colleg Surg England. 94:76–80. doi:10.1308/003588412X13171221502185.
  • Fulwider WK, Grandin T, Rollin BE, Engle TE, Dalsted NL, Lamm WD. 2008. Survey of dairy management practices on one hundred thirteen north central and northeastern United States dairies. J Dairy Sci. 91:1686–1692. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0631.
  • Glynn HD, Coetzee JF, Edwards-Callaway LN, Dockweiler JC, Allen KA, Lubbers B, Jones M, Fraccaro E, Bergamasco LL, Kukanich B. 2013. The pharmacokinetics and effects of meloxicam, gabapentin, and flunixin in postweaning dairy calves following dehorning with local anesthesia. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 36:550–561. doi:10.1111/jvp.12042.
  • 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. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4443.
  • Graf B, Senn M. 1999. Behavioural and physiological responses of calves to dehorning by heat cauterization with or without local anaesthesia. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 62. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00218-4.
  • Guatteo R, Levionnois O, Fournier D, Guémené D, Latouche K, Leterrier C, Le Neindre P. 2012. Minimising pain in farm animals: The 3S approach – ‘Suppress, Substitute, Soothe. Animal. 6:1261–1274. doi:10.1017/S1751731112000262.
  • Heinrich A, Duffield TF, Lissemore KD, Millman ST. 2010. The effect of meloxicam on behavior and pain sensitivity of dairy calves following cautery dehorning with a local anesthetic. J Dairy Sci. 93:2450–2457. doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2813.
  • Herskin MS, Nielsen BH. 2018. Welfare effects of the use of a combination of local anesthesia and NSAID for disbudding analgesia in dairy calves – reviewed across different welfare concerns. Front Vet Sci. 5:1–16. doi:10.3389/fvets.2018.00117.
  • Hokkanen A-H, Wikman I, Korhonen T, Pastell M, Valros A, Vainio O, Hänninen L. 2015. Perceptions and practices of Finnish dairy producers on disbudding pain in calves. J Dairy Sci. 98:823–831. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7668.
  • Hotzel MJ, Longo C, Balcao LF, Cardoso CS, Costa JHC. 2014. A survey of management practices that influence performance and welfare of dairy calves reared in Southern Brazil. PLoS One. 9:e114995. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114995.
  • HPRA. 2015. Summary of product characteristics - adrenacaine. (Intergovernmental Panel on climate change, editor). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9781107415324A009/type/book_part
  • Huxley JN, Whay HR. 2006. Current attitudes of cattle practitioners to pain and the use of analgesics in cattle. Vet Record. 159:662–668. doi:10.1136/vr.159.20.662.
  • Juffinger A, Schoiswohl J, Stanitznig A, Krametter-Frötscher R, Wittek T, Waiblinger S. 2021. Mechanical nociceptive threshold, tissue alterations and horn growth in calves after injection of isoeugenol or clove Oil under the horn Bud. Animals (Basel). 11(3):828. doi:10.3390/ani11030828.
  • Kihurani DO, Mbiuki SM, Ngatia TA. 1989. Healing of dehorning wounds. Br Vet J. 145:580–585. doi:10.1016/0007-1935(89)90121-8.
  • Knierim U, Irrgang N, Roth BA. 2015. To be or not to be horned – consequences in cattle. Livest Sci. 179:29–37. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.014.
  • Laden SA, Wohlt JE, Zajac PK, Carsia RV. 1985. Effects of stress from electrical dehorning on feed intake, growth, and blood constituents of Holstein heifer calves. J Dairy Sci. 68:3062. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(85)81203-0.
  • Marquette GA, McGee M, Stanger K, Fisher AD, Earley B. 2021. Horn bud size of dairy-bred and suckler-bred calves at time of disbudding. Ir Vet J. 74:17. doi:10.1186/s13620-021-00196-0.
  • Martin MS, Kleinhenz MD, Viscardi AV, Curtis AK, Johnson BT, Montgomery SW, Lou ME, Coetzee JF. 2022. Effect of bupivacaine liposome suspension administered as a cornual nerve block on indicators of pain and distress during and after cautery dehorning in dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 105(2):1603–1617. doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21004.
  • McMeekan CM, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ, Bruce RA, Ward RN, Gregory NG. 1997. Effects of shallow scoop and deep scoop dehorning on plasma cortisol concentrations in calves. N Z Vet J. 45:72–74. doi:10.1080/00480169.1997.35994.
  • McMeekan CM, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ, Bruce RA, Ward RN, Gregory NG. 1998. Effects of local anaesthesia of 4 to 8 hours duration on the acute cortisol response to scoop dehorning in calves. Aust Vet J. 76:281–285. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1998.tb10160.x.
  • McMeekan CM, Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ, Bruce RA, Ward RN, Gregory N. 1999. Effects of a local anaesthetic and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesic on the behavioural responses of calves to dehorning. N Z Vet J. 47:92–96. doi:10.1080/00480169.1999.36120.
  • Meischke HRC, Ramsay WR, Shaw FD. 1974. The effect of horns on bruising in cattle. Aust Vet J. 50:432–434. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1974.tb06864.x.
  • Mellor DJ, Cook CJ, Stafford KJ. 2000. Quantifying some responses to pain as a stressor. In: G. P. Moberg, J. A. Mench, editor. The biology of animal stress: basic principles and implications for animal welfare. Davis.: CABI Publishing; p377.
  • Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ. 2004. Animal welfare implications of neonatal mortality and morbidity in farm animals. Vet J. 168:118–133. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2003.08.004.
  • Menke C, Waiblinger S, Fölsch DW, Wiepkema PR. 1999. Social behaviour and injuries of horned cows in loose housing systems. Anim Welfare. 8:243–258. doi:10.1017/S0962728600021734.
  • Milligan BN, Duffield T, Lissemore K. 2004. The utility of ketoprofen for alleviating pain following dehorning in young dairy calves. Can Vet J. 45:140–143.
  • Mintline EM, Stewart M, Rogers AR, Cox NR, Verkerk GA, Stookey JM, Webster JR, Tucker CB. 2013. Play behavior as an indicator of animal welfare: disbudding in dairy calves. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 144:22–30. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2012.12.008.
  • Misch LJ, Duffield TF, Millman ST, Lissemore KD. 2007. An investigation into the practices of dairy producers and veterinarians in dehorning dairy calves in Ontario. Can Vet J. 48:1249–1254.
  • Moggy MA, Pajor EA, Thurston WE, Parker S, Greter AM, Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Campbell JR, Windeyer MC. 2017. Management practices associated with stress in cattle on western Canadian cow-calf operations: a mixed methods study. J Anim Sci. 95:1836–1844.
  • Molaei MM, Azari O, Esmaeilzadeh S. 2014. Study of calves disbudding following injection of clove oil underhorn bud. J Vet Res. 69:363–369.
  • Molaei MM, Mostafavi A, Kheirandish R, Azari O, Shaddel M. 2015. Study of disbudding goat kids following injection of clove oil essence in horn bud region. Vet Res Forum. 6:17–22.
  • Morisse JP, Cotte JP, Huonnic D. 1995. Effect of dehorning on behaviour and plasma cortisol responses in young calves. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 43:239–247. doi:10.1016/0168-1591(95)00569-E.
  • National Farm Animal Care Council. 2013. Code of practice for the care and handling of beef cattle. Available from: https://www.nfacc.ca/pdfs/codes/beef_code_of_practice.pdf.
  • Neave HW, Daros RR, Costa JHC, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. 2013. Pain and pessimism: dairy calves exhibit negative judgement bias following hot-iron disbudding. PLoS One. 8:e80556–6. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080556.
  • Petrie NJ, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ, Bruce RA, Ward RN. 1996. Cortisol responses of calves to two methods of disbudding used with or without local anaesthetic. N Z Vet J. 44:9–14. doi:10.1080/00480169.1996.35924.
  • Preston BT, Stevenson IR, Pemberton JM, Coltman DW, Wilson K. 2003. Overt and covert competition in a promiscuous mammal: the importance of weaponry and testes size to male reproductive success. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B: Biol Sci. B270:633–640. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2268.
  • Reddy P. 2018. Animal welfare (care and procedures) Regulations 2018. Available from: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2018/0050/latest/096be8ed819074c0.pdf.
  • Reedman CN, Duffield TF, DeVries TJ, Lissemore KD, Karrow NA, Li Z, Winder CB. 2020. Randomized control trial assessing the efficacy of pain control strategies for caustic paste disbudding in dairy calves younger than 9 days of age. J Dairy Sci. 103:7339–7350. doi:10.3168/jds.2019-18118.
  • Reedman CN, Duffield TF, DeVries TJ, Lissemore KD, Winder CB. 2022. Graduate student literature review: role of pain mitigation on the welfare of dairy calves undergoing disbudding. J Dairy Sci. 105(8):6809–6819. doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21349.
  • Roder M, Heuwieser W, Borchardt S, Plenio JL, Palme R, Sutter F. 2022. The effect of transdermal flunixin meglumine on blood cortisol levels in dairy calves after cautery disbudding with local anesthesia. J Dairy Sci. 105(4):3468–3476. doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21257.
  • Schoiswohl J, Stanitznig A, Smetanig C, Kneissl S, Thaller D, Juffinger A, Waiblinger S, Palme R, Tichy A, Krametter-Froetscher R, Wittek T. 2022. Comparison of alternative methods for thermal disbudding in calves. J Vet Behav. 51:35–42. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2022.03.004.
  • S.I. No. 107 of 2014. Animal health and welfare (operations and procedures) (No. 2) Regulations. 2014. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/si/107/made/en/print?q=107.
  • S.I. No. 127 of 2014. Animal health and welfare (operations and procedures) (No. 2) Regulations 2014. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/si/127/made/en/pdf
  • S.I. No. 224 of 2014. Animal health and welfare (restriction on horned cattle) (No. 2) Regulations 2014. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/si/224/made/en/print?q=224.
  • Spoolder HAM, Schöne M, Bracke MBM. 2016. Initiatives to reduce mutilations in EU livestock production. Wageningen: Wageningen UR Livestock Research. Livestock Research report; No. 940. https://edepot.wur.nl/374964.
  • Spurlock DM, Stock ML, Coetzee JF. 2014. The impact of 3 strategies for incorporating polled genetics into a dairy cattle breeding program on the overall herd genetic merit. J Dairy Sci. 97:5265–5274. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7746.
  • Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ. 2011. Addressing the pain associated with disbudding and dehorning in cattle. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 135:226–231. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.018.
  • Stanek S, Šárová R, Nejedlá E, Šlosárková S, Doležal O. 2018. Survey of disbudding practice on Czech dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. 101:830–839. doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13143.
  • Stewart M, Stookey JM, Stafford KJ, Tucker CB, Rogers AR, Dowling SK, Verkerk GA, Schaefer AL, Webster JR. 2009. Effects of local anesthetic and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug on pain responses of dairy calves to hot-iron dehorning. J Dairy Sci. 92:1512–1519. doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1578.
  • Stewart M, Webster JR, Schaefer AL, Stafford KJ. 2008. Infrared thermography and heart rate variability for non-invasive assessment of animal welfare. ANZCCART Hum Sci News. 21:1–4.
  • Still Brooks KM, Hempstead MN, Anderson JL, Parsons RL, Sutherland MA, Plummer PJ, Millman ST. 2021 Feb. Characterization of efficacy and animal safety across four caprine disbudding methodologies. Animals (Basel). 11(2):430. PMID: 33562360; PMCID: PMC7915256. doi:10.3390/ani11020430.
  • Stilwell G, de Carvalho RC, Lima MS, Broom DM. 2009. Effect of caustic paste disbudding, using local anaesthesia with and without analgesia, on behaviour and cortisol of calves. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 116:35–44. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.06.008.
  • Stilwell G, Lima MS, Broom DM. 2007. Comparing the effect of three different disbudding methods on behaviour and plasma cortisol of calves. Rev Port Ciências Vet. 102:281–288.
  • Stock ML, Baldridge SL, Griffin D, Coetzee JF. 2013. Bovine dehorning. Vet Clin North Am: Food Anim Pract. 29:103–133. doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.11.001.
  • Stock ML, Barth LA, van Engen NK, Millman ST, Gehring R, Wang C, Voris EA, Wulf LW, Labeur L, Hsu WH, Coetzee JF. 2016. Impact of carprofen administration on stress and nociception responses of calves to cautery dehorning1. J Anim Sci. 94:542–555. doi:10.2527/jas.2015-9510.
  • Stock ML, Coetzee JF. 2015. Clinical pharmacology of analgesic drugs in cattle. Vet Clin North Am: Food Anim Pract. 31:113–138. doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2014.11.002.
  • Sutherland MA, Ballou MA, Davis BL, Brooks TA. 2013. Effect of castration and dehorning singularly or combined on the behavior and physiology of Holstein calves1. J Anim Sci. 91:935–942. doi:10.2527/jas.2012-5190.
  • Sutherland MA, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ, Gregory NG, Bruce RA, Ward RN. 2002. Effect of local anaesthetic combined with wound cauterisation on the cortisol response to dehorning in calves. Aust Vet J. 80:165–167. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2002.tb11385.x.
  • Sylvester SP, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ, Bruce RA, Ward RN. 1998. Acute cortisol responses of calves to scoop dehorning using local anaesthesia and/or cautery of the wound. Aust Vet J. 76:118–122. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1998.tb14542.x.
  • Sylvester SP, Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ, Bruce RA, Ward RN. 2004. Behavioural responses of calves to amputation dehorning with and without local anaesthesia. Aust Vet J. 82:697–700. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2004.tb12162.x.
  • Taschke AC, Folsch DW. 1993. Effects of electrical dehorning on behaviour and on salivary cortisol in calves. In: M. Nichelmann, H. K. Wierenga, S. Braun, editors. Proceedings of the international congress on applied ethology, Berlin. Berlin: Humboldt University; p. 326.
  • Taschke AC, Folsch DW. 1997. Ethological, physiological and histological aspects of pain and stress in cattle when being dehorned. Tierarztl Prax. 25:19–27.
  • Thomsen PT, Hansen JH, Herskin MS. 2021. Dairy calves show behavioural responses to hot iron disbudding after local anaesthesia with procaine. Vet Rec. 188:e52. doi:10.1002/vetr.52.
  • Tucker CB. 2018. Advances in cattle welfare. Cambridge (MA): Woodhead Publishing. (Series in food science, technology and nutrition).
  • Vasseur E, Borderas F, Cue RI, Lefebvre D, Pellerin D, Rushen J, Wade KM, de Passille AM. 2010. A survey of dairy calf management practices in Canada that affect animal welfare. J Dairy Sci. 93:1307–1316. doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2429.
  • Vasseur E, Rushen J, de Passillé AM. 2014. Short communication: calf body temperature following chemical disbudding with sedation: effects of milk allowance and supplemental heat. J Dairy Sci. 97(8):5185–5190. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7519.
  • Vickers KJ, Niel L, Kiehlbauch LM, Weary DM. 2005. Calf response to caustic paste and hot-iron dehorning using sedation with and without local anesthetic. J Dairy Sci. 88:1454–1459. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72813-7.
  • Weaver AD, St. Jean G, Steiner A. 2005. Bovine surgery and lameness. Ames: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Winder CB, Bauman CA, Duffield TF, Barkema HW, Keefe GP, Dubuc J, Uehlinger F, Kelton DF. 2018. Canadian national dairy study: heifer calf management. J Dairy Sci. 101:10565–10579. doi:10.3168/jds.2018-14680.
  • Winder CB, LeBlanc SJ, Haley DB, Lissemore KD, Godkin MA, Duffield TF. 2016. Practices for the disbudding and dehorning of dairy calves by veterinarians and dairy producers in Ontario, Canada. J Dairy Sci. 99:10161–10173. doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11270.
  • Winder CB, Miltenburg CL, Sargeant JM, LeBlanc SJ, Haley DB, Lissemore KD, Godkin MA, Duffield TF. 2018. Effects of local anesthetic or systemic analgesia on pain associated with cautery disbudding in calves: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dairy Sci. 101:5411–5427. doi:10.3168/jds.2017-14092.
  • Wohlt JE, Allyn ME, Zajac PK, Katz LS. 1994. Cortisol increases in plasma of Holstein heifer calves from handling and method of electrical dehorning. J Dairy Sci. 77:3725–3729. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77317-3.