A nationwide survey on producer and veterinarian perceptions of the painfulness of procedures and disease states in dairy and beef cattle

Pain pathophysiology and pharmacology of cattle: how improved understanding can enhance pain prevention, mitigation, and welfare

Globally, humans rely on cattle for food production; however, there is rising societal concern surrounding the welfare of farm animals. From a young age, cattle raised for dairy and beef production experience pain caused by routine management procedures and common disease conditions. The fundamental mechanisms, nociceptive pathways, and central nervous system structures required for pain perception are highly conserved among mammalian species. However, there are limitations to a comparative approach to pain assessment due to interspecies differences in the expression of pain. The stoicism of prey species may impede pain identification and lead to the assumption that cattle lack pain sensitivity. This highlights the importance of establishing validated bovine-specific indicators of pain-a prerequisite for evidence-based pain assessment and mitigation. Our first objective is to provide an overview of pain pathophysiology to illustrate the importance of targeted analgesia in livestock medicine and the negative welfare outcomes associated with unmitigated pain. This is followed by a review of available analgesics, the regulations governing their use, and barriers to implementation of on-farm pain management. We then investigate the current research undertaken to evaluate the pain response in cattle-a critical aspect of the drug approval process. With an emphasis on emerging research in animal cognition and pain pathology, we conclude by discussing the significant influence that pain has on cattle welfare and areas where further research and modified practices are indicated.

How do different members of the on-farm mobility team perceive lameness, and what factors influence their NSAID use?

BACKGROUND

Lameness affects approximately one-third of the national dairy herd, impacting welfare and production. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the main analgesic available, but use is variable. The aims of this study were to describe how members of the mobility team perceive pain and use NSAIDs for conditions causing lameness in dairy cows.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed online to UK farmers, veterinarians, veterinary technicians (VTs) and foot trimmers (FTs). Respondents were asked to describe factors affecting their NSAID use and to score pain associated with 16 scenarios, including diagnoses, conditions and procedures associated with lameness in cows.

RESULTS

Of 210 respondents, 81 (38.6%) were farmers, 80 (38.1%) were veterinarians, 34 (16.2%) were FTs and 15 (7.1%) were VTs. For most conditions, farmers scored pain lower than veterinarians and VTs and were less likely to use or recommend NSAIDs than veterinarians, VTs and FTs. Farmers rated cow comfort as more important (p < 0.001) and the cost of drugs as less important (p < 0.001) in using NSAIDs than veterinarians predicted.

LIMITATIONS

There were fewer VTs and FTs than farmers and veterinarians, limiting generalisation. Response and social acceptability biases may have affected the findings.

CONCLUSION

All members of the mobility team have different perceptions and areas of expertise around lameness. Increasing collaboration and harnessing of skills and knowledge within the team could improve detection and treatment of lameness, with consequent benefits to cow welfare and production.

Pain Assessment in Cattle by Use of Numerical Rating and Visual Analogue Scales-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Subjective pain assessment in cattle is contingent upon the observer's experience and attitude. Studies of pain assessment in cattle by veterinarians and farmers using different pain scales have been published. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to describe and compare the pain scores given by veterinarians and producers for different procedures and conditions using either a NRS or VAS. The literature search was conducted with PubMed (MEDLINE) and Agricola, using defined search terms (e.g., peer-reviewed). A total of 842 articles were identified. After screening of duplicates, abstracts, and full texts, a total of 16 articles were included in this systematic review. Different pain scales were used for the included studies (NRS 0-10 for eight studies, NRS 1-10 for six studies, NRS 1-10 and VAS 0-10 for one study, and VAS 0-1 for one study). Most studies (n = 11) originated from the European Union. Mean values for pain scores differed significantly between studies included in the meta-analysis for both NRS 0-10 and 1-10. The findings of this study indicated that comparison of pain scoring used in different studies is difficult due to use of different pain scales and varying nomenclature, and that many variables (such as age and gender) influence pain scoring.