Dataset Information

Producer and Veterinarian Perspectives towards Pain Management Practices in the US Cattle Industry.

ABSTRACT: Producers and veterinarians are considered responsible for improving animal welfare, as they are responsible for implementing practices that directly impact the animal's well-being. Most husbandry procedures performed in cattle do not include pain mitigation, and understanding challenges faced by these stakeholders to use analgesics is key in improving on-farm pain management strategies. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to explore producer and veterinarian perspectives on pain management practices by (1) exploring inquires received by Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD) regarding analgesic use in cattle and (2) using a survey instrument to identify factors that impact pain management implementation in the US cattle industry. Albeit analgesia use increased in the past ten years for some producers and the majority of veterinarians, administering analgesics for pain management on US cattle farms remains a challenge. From a producer perspective, drug cost, availability and logistics for administration. From a veterinarian perspective, lack of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) products hinders the support of on-farm protocols requiring extra-label drug use. Future steps to improve analgesic use on-farm include identifying and approving drugs that demonstrate efficacy for managing pain in cattle and disseminating educational resources to support stakeholders in both the implementation and drug withdrawal process.

SUBMITTER: Robles I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7830793 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Producer and Veterinarian Perspectives towards Pain Management Practices in the US Cattle Industry.

Robles Ivelisse I Arruda Andreia G AG Nixon Emma E Johnstone Elizabeth E Wagner Brooklyn B Edwards-Callaway Lily L Baynes Ronald R Coetzee Johann J Pairis-Garcia Monique M

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI 20210116 1

Producers and veterinarians are considered responsible for improving animal welfare, as they are responsible for implementing practices that directly impact the animal's well-being. Most husbandry procedures performed in cattle do not include pain mitigation, and understanding challenges faced by these stakeholders to use analgesics is key in improving on-farm pain management strategies. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to explore producer and veterinarian perspectives on pain manage ...[more]

PMID: 33467105

Similar Datasets

Project description:Failure to adequately manage pain in cattle causes suffering and is thus a welfare concern for the livestock industry. The objectives of this study were to summarize caregiver perceptions of the painfulness of various procedures and disease conditions in cattle. This survey also assessed factors that impact the perception of painfulness and determined relationships between pain perception and mitigation in producers and veterinarians in the United States beef and dairy cattle industries. An online survey was distributed via organization listservs and social media groups representing beef and dairy veterinarians and producers. The survey included questions about respondent demographics and pain perception and frequency of pain mitigation use for a variety of common husbandry procedures and disease conditions in cattle less than 2 months, 2-12 months, and greater than 12 months of age. Descriptive statistics were generated, and ordinal logistic regressions were used to assess the relationship between perceived pain level, frequency of pain mitigation use, and respondent demographic factors (e.g., gender, age, and role). There was a relatively low percentage of respondents that identified there was "no pain" associated with the listed procedures and conditions. Across the majority of procedures and conditions and cattle age categories, men perceived procedures to be less painful than women (P < 0.05). Veterinarians and producer-veterinarians perceived procedures to be more painful than producers (P < 0.05) for the majority of procedures and conditions. There were some differences identified between respondent age groups in pain perception but the trends were not consistent across procedures and conditions. There was a significant positive linear trend, with greater perceived pain associated with greater likelihood of providing local and systemic analgesia for all procedures and conditions across all cattle age categories (P ≤ 0.02). Perception of pain is complex and multifactorial, and it influences the likelihood to treat pain in cattle. This research highlighted the importance of understanding how these factors may play a role in increasing the use of pain mitigation within the beef and dairy industries.

Project description:Ensuring the safety, health, and overall well-being of animals raised for food is both an ethical obligation and a critical component of providing safe food products. The use of antibiotics for maintaining animal health has come under scrutiny in recent years due to the rise of antibiotic resistance globally. Some U.S. producers, especially in the poultry industry, have responded by eliminating their antibiotic use. The number of animals raised without antibiotics (RWA) is growing in the U.S., but there are concerns that RWA practices might negatively impact animal health and welfare. Therefore, the objective of this study was to survey U.S. veterinarians and producers about their experiences and opinions regarding RWA production. Veterinarians, farmers, ranchers, producers, and other stakeholders involved in raising broilers, turkeys, swine, beef cattle or dairy cattle were surveyed. Of the 565 completed responses received, 442 self-reported as practicing veterinarians or producers. Just over half of respondents reported having past or current experience with RWA programs. The main indicated reasons for raising animals without antibiotics were market driven; switching to RWA production was less commonly made for health-related reasons, such as to reduce antibiotic resistance or to improve animal health and welfare. Although respondents felt that RWA production has negative impacts on animal health and welfare, they overwhelmingly (>70%) indicated that the customer (retailer/restaurant/food service) believes that animal and health welfare will be significantly improved. Veterinarians and producers indicated that RWA programs will increase production costs with questionable effect on meat, egg or dairy consumer demand. Many respondents felt that there are times when the RWA label takes priority over animal health and welfare. Respondents generally felt that there was a need for increased auditing/assessment of animal health and welfare in RWA systems.

Project description:Improving the lives of animals in agricultural systems has primarily focused on minimizing negative experiences. Research is needed on the promotion of positive experiences (pleasure, enjoyment, play, choice, happiness) for animals and the role of veterinarians in their promotion. Our aims were to describe how Canadian bovine veterinarians and veterinary students perceive the role of a veterinarian in positive vs. negative experiences for dairy cows and to analyze the rationale provided to explain their answers. Canadian veterinary practitioners (n = 78) and veterinary students (n = 148) responded to an online cross-sectional survey and were asked, on a 7-point scale, how important the role of a veterinarian is to promote practices that influence the experience of dairy cows. We used qualitative description to analyse participants' open-ended text responses. Practices to minimize negative experiences were most important (mean ± SE; 6.8 ± 0.03), a balance of positive and negative experiences was less important (6.4 ± 0.05), and encouragement of positive experiences scored lowest (6.0 ± 0.06), although all scored highly. Four themes were identified to explain participants' reasoning regarding their perceived role of a veterinarian in the promotion of dairy cattle welfare, centered on: the animal, the producer, the veterinarian, and society. Participants indicated that promoting positive experiences was less important than decreasing negative experiences (5.9 ± 0.09). There were four themes identified to explain participants' reasoning regarding the relative importance of promotion of positive experiences versus decreasing negative experiences which centered on: frameworks to compare positive and negative experiences, impacts on the animal, the participant's view of their role, and the practicality of implementation. These results indicate modest differences in valuing avoidance of negative vs. promotion of positive welfare. There were no differences in the quantitative analyses between veterinarians and veterinary students. We conclude that veterinarians are favorably disposed to positive aspects of welfare for dairy cows but may be more focussed on avoidance of negative aspects of welfare.

Dataset Information

Producer and Veterinarian Perspectives towards Pain Management Practices in the US Cattle Industry.

Publications

Producer and Veterinarian Perspectives towards Pain Management Practices in the US Cattle Industry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets