Preliminary Findings on a Novel Behavioural Approach for the Assessment of Pain and Analgesia in Lambs Subject to Routine Husbandry Procedures

Qualitative behavioral assessment of dogs with acute pain

Free Choice Profiling (FCP) methodology allows observers to qualitatively assess animal behavior using their own vocabulary. This study aims to investigate the ability of 3 different observer groups to recognize pain-related emotions in 20 dogs using FCP methodology, and to compare FCP data with the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale-Short Form (GCPS- SF) scores. The observer groups consisted of 10 dog owners, 10 veterinary students and 10 veterinarians. Ten healthy ("healthy") dogs and 10 dogs showing clinical signs of pain ("pain") were filmed, and the resulting 20 footages were shown to observers who were blind to the pain-related nature of the study. All observers described and scored animals' emotional expression using FCP; then, students and veterinarians scored all dogs using GCPS- SF. FCP data were analyzed using Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA). Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) was used to determine the correlation among observer groups' FCP scores of the first two FCP dimensions (DIM1 and DIM2), and to compare GCPS-SF scores with FCP scores for the students and veterinarian observer groups. Each observer group reached a significant (p < 0.001) good consensus profile. "Healthy" dogs were mainly described as "quiet" and "lively", while the majority of "pain" dogs were considered "in pain" and "suffering". The correlation among FCP scores was high between owners' DIM1 and students' DIM1 (ρ = -0.86), owners' DIM2 and students' DIM2 (ρ = 0.72) and students' DIM2 and vets' DIM1 (ρ = 0.70). The correlation between GCPS-SF scores and FCP scores was high for students' DIM2 (ρ = 0.77) and for veterinarians' DIM1 (ρ = 0.92). Qualitative methods such as FCP could be used in association with semi-quantitative methods to evaluate the effect of pain on animal emotional expression. Observers' cultural background and personal experience did not substantially affect qualitative behavioral assessment in dogs with acute somatic pain.

An Exploration of Analgesia Options for Australian Sheep

During their lifetime, sheep undergo many painful husbandry and disease processes. Procedures undertaken on the farm, such as tail docking, castration, and mulesing, all cause considerable pain. In addition, sheep may experience painful diseases and injuries that require treatment by veterinary practitioners, and in biomedical research, sheep may undergo painful experimental procedures or conditions. It is important due to ethics, animal welfare, social licence, and, at times, legal requirements for farmers, veterinary practitioners, and researchers to provide pain relief for animals in their care. While there is a heightened awareness of and a greater interest in animal welfare, there remain few licensed and known analgesia options for sheep within Australia. A literature review was undertaken to identify currently known and potential future options for analgesic agents in sheep in farm and biomedical settings. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, opioids, local anaesthetics, α2 adrenoreceptor agonists, and NMDA receptor antagonists are some of the more common classes of analgesic drugs referred to in the literature, but few drugs are registered for use in sheep, with even fewer proven to be effective. Only six analgesic product formulations, namely, lignocaine (e.g., Numocaine®), Tri-Solfen®, ketamine, xylazine, and meloxicam (oral transmucosal and injectable formulations), are currently registered in Australia and known to be efficacious in some types of painful conditions in sheep. The gap in knowledge and availability of analgesia in sheep can pose risks to animal welfare, social licence, and research outcomes. This article presents a summary of analgesic agents that have been used in sheep on farms and in clinical veterinary and biomedical research settings along with details on whether their efficacy was assessed, doses, routes of administration, indication for use, and pain assessment techniques (if any) used. The outcome of this research highlights the challenges, gaps, and opportunities for better analgesia options in sheep.

Uncontrolled pain: a call for better study design

Studies assessing animal pain in veterinary research are often performed primarily for the benefit of animals. Frequently, the goal of these studies is to determine whether the analgesic effect of a novel treatment is clinically meaningful, and therefore has the capacity to improve the welfare of treated animals. To determine the treatment effect of a potential analgesic, control groups are necessary to allow comparison. There are negative control groups (where pain is unattenuated) and positive control groups (where pain is attenuated). Arising out of animal welfare concerns, there is growing reluctance to use negative control groups in pain studies. But for studies where pain is experimentally induced, the absence of a negative control group removes the opportunity to demonstrate that the study methods could differentiate a positive control intervention from doing nothing at all. For studies that are controlled by a single comparison group, the capacity to distinguish treatment effects from experimental noise is more difficult; especially considering that pain studies often involve small sample sizes, small and variable treatment effects, systematic error and use pain assessment measures that are unreliable. Due to these limitations, and with a focus on farm animals, we argue that many pain studies would be enhanced by the simultaneous inclusion of positive and negative control groups. This would help provide study-specific definitions of pain and pain attenuation, thereby permitting more reliable estimates of treatment effects. Adoption of our suggested refinements could improve animal welfare outcomes for millions of animals globally.

Legal assessment of ingrown horns and other horn-related anomalies in cattle and sheep

Cattle and sheep horns have the potential to grow in such a way that the horn bends toward the animal's head and, if left untreated, may penetrate the skin, causing pressure, pain, and suffering. According to the Swedish Animal Welfare Act, animals must be looked after in a way that prevents ingrown horns; otherwise, the person responsible for the animal may be prosecuted. Here, we present a review of 32 legal cases that occurred in Sweden between 2008 and 2022 for which the charge involved horn-related anomalies in cattle or sheep. The aim being to investigate the nature of these horn-related anomalies and the circumstances under which they occur. Of the legal cases, 53% were discovered during official animal welfare control on farms and 44% at an abattoir during pre-slaughter inspection. These include extreme injuries, e.g. both horns penetrating the periosteum into the skull bone, or a horn penetrating into the eye or oral cavity. The reasons offered by the accused for failing to detect animals with horn-related anomalies included that the animal appeared normal, that it was long-haired, shy, or hard to reach, or that the horns had not undergone gradual growth but had accidentally or suddenly penetrated the skin. Overall, 81% of the cases led to convictions; however, none of these resulted in imprisonment. Reasons for acquittals included insufficient crime description or evidence as to how the horn-related anomaly occurred or of the animal being exposed to suffering. A number of recommendations are provided that could help limit the occurrence of ingrown horns.

Analgesic Comparison of Flunixin Meglumine or Meloxicam for Soft-Tissue Surgery in Sheep: A Pilot Study

Simple Summary

Pain management is lacking in U.S. commercial sheep production systems. This is, in part, due to the limited amount of scientific data evaluating sheep pain responses after analgesia treatment. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as meloxicam (MEL) and flunixin meglumine (FLU), are the most common drug class provided to livestock species to manage pain. Pain assessment tools, such as facial grimace scales, which use changes in facial expression to monitor pain, are also needed to improve pain management and sheep welfare. In this study, sheep undergoing a laparotomy (a surgical procedure where an incision is made into the abdominal cavity) were treated with either MEL or FLU to manage pain. A third group of ewes did not undergo surgery and served as study controls (CON). Behavior and physiologic outcome measures were collected pre-procedure and up to 48 h post-procedure. The results suggest that MEL and FLU were equally effective at providing post-operative analgesia; however, even with NSAID administration, acute pain and inflammation were still present in surgical sheep compared to non-surgical controls. The facial grimace scale results were not consistent with the other outcome measures taken in this study and it should not be used as a stand-alone pain assessment tool.

Abstract

The amount of scientific data evaluating sheep pain responses after analgesia treatment is limited. The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of flunixin meglumine (FLU) and meloxicam (MEL) at relieving post-surgical pain in sheep and to evaluate the utility of the Sheep Grimace Scale (SGS). Thirty ewes were assigned to one of three treatment groups: oral MEL or intravenous FLU to manage pain associated with a laparotomy procedure, or a non-surgical control (CON) group. Behavior and physiologic outcome measures were collected pre-procedure and up to 48 h post-procedure. There were no significant differences in behavior, gait, degree of inflammation or pain around the surgical site when MEL and FLU sheep were compared, suggesting that both drugs provided similar levels of analgesia. Significant differences in behavior, gait, abdominal inflammation and pain were found when surgical sheep were compared to non-surgical controls. More work is needed to characterize the amount of pain relief provided by MEL and FLU. The SGS had moderate reliability between scorers; however, the results were inconsistent with the other study outcome measures. The SGS may have some utility as a pain assessment tool but should be used in conjunction with other pain measures.