Blog

Wiolene Nordi and Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein

Sheep production in Canada is increasing (one million head on 11,000 farms of which 2,000 farms are in Alberta), due to the growing demand for lamb meat by consumers over the last five years as a result of growing ethnic markets. Consequently, both ewe flocks and growing/finishing lamb feedlots have been increasing in number and size within Alberta to meet the demand for this growing market.
Lameness is a common cause of welfare and economic concern in most sheep producing countries. For example, prevalence of lameness in UK sheep farms has been reported to be between eight and 10 per cent with the main cause being, interdigital dermatitis, severe footrot, ovine digital dermatitis, and shelly hoof (Kaler and Green 2009*). In Alberta, we see lame sheep on farms, feedlots, auctions and pasture. At one time, there was a provincial footrot eradication program. Veterinary inspections, foot trimming and foot-soaking were standard annual procedures for the 20,000 plus sheep that headed to B.C. forestry reserves. Despite all the effort, time and money, lame sheep are still common.

Healthy foot vs foot affected with foot rot

Canadian sheep and lamb producers consider lameness a serious health and welfare issue, resulting in high culls rates of breeding stock, reduced ewe productivity, slow growth performance of feeder lambs, and high labor and treatment costs to manage these animals. Lameness has long contributed to reduced animal productivity. It is associated with pain and discomfort and results in modifications to the animal’s gait; thus, reducing feed intake and increasing weight loss, labour and drug costs. One of the current challenges is accurately identifying lameness and making a correct diagnosis. At this time, very little has been published on the prevalence, risk factors, causative agents, and cost of lameness in Canadian sheepLame feedlot sheep

Consequently, a two year study (2018-2020) funded by Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, the Alberta Lamb Producers, Van Raay Paskal Farms and Canada Gold Beef and co-lead by Dr. Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Dr. Doerte Döpfer from the University of Wisconsin is currently underway. The research team also includes Dr. Joyce Van Donkersgoed (Alberta Beef Health Solutions), Dr. Kathy Parker (Sheep Health Solutions), Dr. Sonia Marti (IRTA, Barcelona Spain) and Dr. Wiolene Nordi who is the postdoctoral fellow conducting the study. The main objectives of their research will be to 1) determine the relative occurrence of lameness in feedlot lambs and ewe flocks, 2) characterize the types of lameness observed, 3) identify causative agents associated with lameness, and 4) document the transmission rates of the most prevalent cause of infectious lameness in feedlot sheep.

Knowledge generated by this research team on the occurrence, types and causes of lameness will help improve how producers and veterinarians diagnose lameness to improve prevention, treatment and control of the disease. This will benefit both animal health, welfare and production economics by providing sheep producers and small ruminant veterinarians with science-based information regarding disease diagnostics and animal management risk factors. This information is critical in mitigating the effects of lameness in the Alberta sheep industry. As well, it will help identify additional areas of research to help prevent the most common causes of lameness e.g. best management practices and new vaccines.

Research Team members needed:

YOU –THE PRODUCERS!

We invite you to help us study this problem so that together we can learn how to minimize sheep lameness and improve animal welfare and productivity.

What we are asking:
We are looking for producers who are willing to share information with us via mail, email, fax or text, in the event that they have a lameness case arise on their farm.
The information we would like you to collect includes animal identification, history of lameness for the animal and farm, diagnosis, treatment, results of treatment, photographs of lesion, comments such as severity of the lameness (ability to bear weight or not), recent weather events, and pen or pasture conditions (wet or dry).

Forms will be provided to facilitate recording and reporting cases of lameness.
For further information: lucia.holtshausen@agr.gc.ca or 403-915-5864

By Dr. Darrell Dalton

In 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) recognized the increased development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a global crisis. Dr Keiji Fukuda, Assistant Director-General of WHO stated, “Without urgent, coordinated action by many stakeholders, the world is headed for a post-antibiotic era, in which common infections and minor injuries which have been treatable for decades can once again kill.” This will affect generations to come. Later that year, our federal Minister of Health demanded that an action plan be developed by Health Canada to address this issue in Canada.

As a result, Health Canada has stated that as of December 1, 2018, all antimicrobials (an agent that kills microorganisms or stops their growth) will be available by prescription only under veterinary oversight. The government recognizes the important and critical role that veterinarians play (by virtue of their education, experience and accountability) in providing oversight of the use of antimicrobials. We know that 80% of all antimicrobials used are used in animal agriculture. Veterinarians are being given the great responsibility to be stewards of good antimicrobial use, and thus help in contributing to agriculture’s efforts to help slow or reverse the trends of AMR.

AMR occurs when microorganisms (germs, bacteria, fungi) become resistant to the antimicrobials to which they are exposed. Those of us involved in animal agriculture recognize that the use of antimicrobials plays an important role in our ability to raise and sell healthy animals. We must accept our responsibilities for not contributing to increased AMR occurring. This is what the new regulations around prescribing and dispensing of antimicrobials is hoping to address.

So, what does this mean to the average producer? If you have been working routinely with a veterinarian, you should notice minor or no changes. If you have not been associated with a veterinarian, then you should develop a relationship with one so that if the need arises, you will be able to obtain prescriptions for medications that your animals need. There will be no alternate pathway to access these medications.

A prescription from a veterinarian will be required to obtain all antimicrobials. After December 1, 2018 you will no longer be able to access any antimicrobial from a lay distributor, and will be required to have prescriptions dispensed (filled) either by a veterinarian or a pharmacist. By this date, all the labels for these products will indicate that they are by prescription only. In addition, on this date there will be no more claims for growth promotion on these products.

In addition, a veterinary prescription will be required prior to sale when an antimicrobial drug is mixed in livestock feeds. All approved in-feed drugs (including over-the-counter and prescription) are to be included in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Canadian Medicating Ingredient Brochure (CMIB) and can be mixed and sold by a feed mill. Medications to be mixed on farm will also require a prescription, and will only be sold by veterinarians or pharmacists.

Reduction of AMR is of importance to all of us. To accomplish this, it is going to take all of us working together. The use of antimicrobials in animals is a privilege that we must respect if we are going to maintain it.
​

By Katie Koralesky and David Fraser

On-farm emergency slaughter (OFES) is one end-of-life option for farm animals that cannot be transported humanely but are fit for human consumption. OFES – whereby veterinary inspection, stunning (using a firearm) and bleeding occur on the farm before the carcass is transported to a slaughterhouse for processing – is allowed in several Canadian provinces including Alberta. The stated goals of most OFES programs are to prevent undue suffering of an injured animal and to salvage meat.

In British Columbia, OFES is typically used for dairy cows, often in situations where there may be uncertainty over the diagnosis of the condition and prognosis for the cow. In British Columbia and elsewhere, OFES is a controversial practice that is used and supported by some farmers but not others. Therefore, we conducted two studies to first determine the types of injuries that lead to OFES, and second to identify perceptions and concerns about OFES. Study findings are highlighted below.

For the first study, we examined 812 OFES veterinary inspection documents from August 2014 to December 2015. The most common injuries were leg injuries (35% of total cases) with rear leg problems outnumbering front leg problems by 3:1. Full and partial hip dislocations accounted for 20% of total cases. 61% of nerve injuries (11.5% of total cases) were classified as damage to the obturator nerve, and foot injuries and lameness (7% of total cases) were most common among cows aged 5 years and older. Some documents included information about the number of days elapsed between the injury and OFES; these showed that OFES was sometimes done on the day of injury, but in other cases, several days passed before OFES was used.

To understand dairy industry professionals’ perceptions of OFES, we conducted 25 individual and 3 group interviews with 40 participants (farmers, veterinarians and others). We spoke with participants who supported and used OFES and those who did not. These discussions revealed positive and negative perceptions of OFES influenced by participants’ values, by how they perceived the operational legitimacy of OFES, and by concerns about social responsibility of the dairy sector.

Participants valued cow welfare, but some believed that OFES promoted fast decision-making for injured cows and was therefore positive for cow welfare, while others thought OFES prolonged animal suffering, for example if farmers waited for the veterinarian, transporter, or slaughterhouse to be available rather than doing prompt euthanasia. Participants also appreciated that OFES offered an opportunity to salvage meat from an animal they had raised and cared for.

Photo credit: https://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/5789266/checklist_for_transporting_cows_dnz50_005_april_2018_update.pdf

Participants also questioned whether veterinarians may be put into a conflict between their duty to verify an animals’ eligibility for OFES and their client’s desire to use the program. Additionally, some participants felt that if veterinarians were not consulted first on the animals’ eligibility for OFES, they may feel pressured to endorse the farmers’ decision to proceed.

Finally, while some participants saw OFES as a positive opportunity to avoid the inhumane transport of cows to public auction, others saw it as a stop-gap rather than a satisfactory solution to compromised cow management. Some participants thought it better to proactively cull animals that are at risk of developing problems in the future, and to use prompt euthanasia for injured animals. Finally, participants also expressed concern over food safety depending on hygiene at the site of slaughter.

We combined study findings and developed recommendations for the OFES program that retain its positive features and address valid concerns:
1) Clarification is needed on what conditions (e.g. fractures versus lameness) are allowable for OFES.
2) Precise timing parameters are needed to avoid inappropriate delays.
3) Veterinarians need training on how to verify animals’ eligibility for OFES.
4) Veterinarians should be designated as the first point of contact in the OFES process.
5) Proactive culling should become the norm so that emergency procedures like OFES are needed less often; however, each farm should have an end-of-life decision-making protocol to use when necessary.
6) OFES needs to be conducted in a hygienic location with appropriate equipment.

For further information please email Katie Koralesky at katie.koralesky@alumni.ubc.ca. The University of British Columbia Animal Welfare Program is grateful to the study participants and the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture for the provision of the documents. General funding for the Animal Welfare Program is provided by NSERC, the British Columbia Dairy Association, the Dairy Farmers of Canada and many others listed at http://awp.landfood.ubc.ca/ Parts of this article are from:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-14320 and a UBC Dairy Education and Research Centre Research Report (Vol 18, No 1).

By Roy Lewis DVM

Bison handlers know how quick and flighty bison can be when confined or stressed. They appear to have no respect for their bodies. We as their keepers must eliminate areas and conditions that place them at risk.

In the past it wasn’t uncommon to loose a bison from a broken neck or to have several injure themselves while they were being handled. As bison handlers we have improved our practices significantly but there is still room for improvement. We must be proactive as an industry. My goal in this article is to provide some suggestions for everyone handling bison as well as share some thought provoking scenarios.

There has not been much research done on handling bison. Much of the information is anecdotal and based on the experience of those in the bison industry. Researcher by people such as Temple Grandin and her graduate students have started to investigate bison handling issues. Manufacturers of bison handling equipment have developed equipment incorporating feedback from producers to minimize animal injuries while protecting the handlers. We as producers should always look for ways to improve our handling techniques.

As a veterinarian I use several measuring sticks to measure my success at handling bison. Minor injuries such as bloody noses or a broken horn are mentally noted – their frequency and where they have occurred. You can also monitor the percent of bison that fall and the per cent that hit fences and gates including the location. There could be several very different causes from the obvious ones such as handling setup, experience of the workers, flightiness of the bison to less obvious such as weather (overcast versus sunny), time of day (are shadows being cast), time of year (rut versus non breeding season), wind causing a tarp to flap, or delays in handling that allow bison to get agitated. Serious injuries such as broken necks, broken noses, leg injuries or bison getting caught by horns or legs should have their cause researched and processes developed so these injuries are not repeated. Learn from our mistakes. Solutions to some of these injuries range from tarping gates for slowing bison down to making handling facilities taller so jumping is not even attempted.

Handling facilities need to be around seven feet tall to prevent bison from jumping. Placing roofs over chutes or handling boxes also tends to slow bison down and keep them calmer. Trying to jump over panels can trap legs with legs slipping between the panel and post. Guards placed over the top of these areas prevent that from occurring.

Bison are flight animals and their flight zone is much, much larger than that of cattle. Most times slower movement with only slight body language will get the job done. Most handling areas are pretty much enclosed. If areas are too closed in, bison may try to hide in those areas. One solid side with the other partially open so bison can partially see the handler will facilitate movement. Stay a distance away so they don’t become agitated.

When processing bison I like to use various forms of handling aids. First is simply moving towards them. Minimal body language will often work. If increasing pressure is required I will first use waving devices or flags and as necessary followed by paddles that rattle. The final aid may be a stock prod but only if ABSOLUTELY necessary! Often a few seconds delay between these handling methods is all that is necessary for the bison to proceed on their own. Generally we keep the stock prod away from the working area and use it only when absolutely necessary and only as a last resort. I have seen systems where 300 bison were processed and the prod was used only a couple of time. Should a prod be necessary, generally one quick touch is all that is necessary to gain movement. Remember that when bison go down in the chute, releasing the side squeeze is all that is often required. Also, if possible, it is helpful to evaluate the circumstances that caused the need for the stock prod so that they can be avoided in the future.

The best advice I can give is to all bison farmers of ranchers is to help other producers when they handle their bison. There is always something to be learned or shared. We often see producers with experience helping others. Having an experienced crew goes a long ways to minimizing problems. I find at times it is necessary to work bison slowly while there will be other occasions you will need to work quickly when a gate or slider needs to be closed or open.

Sorting and breaking of the herd into smaller groups can be done patiently by baiting with feed. Time spent here with the person and tractor or feed truck that they are familiar with will save time later as small groups do not create the “bunching” problems of larger herds. Large groups in enclosed areas with distinct tight corners are areas where most of the goring and trampling injuries can occur. The big bulls and older cantankerous cows are the cause of a majority of these injuries.

Before you design and build your handling facility, evaluate facilities of other producers. You can learn much from the experience of others. Design your handling area so that most barriers are solid and that there are no places where the bison can get a long run. Neck injuries are often the result of fast running bison crashing headlong into solid barriers. Again most producers only open the head chute when bison are in the chute to prevent them running headlong into the crash gate. Some crash gates are spring loaded and padded to minimize injuries.

The farmers and ranchers in the bison industry have made significant progress in improving their bison handling skills. Major injuries are rare and minor injuries such as horn damage or bloody noses are becoming uncommon. Monitor bison injuries when you handle your bison. Each time you handle bison, try and improve the outcome from the time before. There are times when patience is a virtue.

Caroline Ritter and Herman Barkema, University of Calgary

Dairy farmers have to balance industry standards, consumer expectations, and economic sustainability of their farm, while concurrently addressing their own standards and priorities. A better understanding of the influences behind farmers’ decision-making will enable policy-makers to design more effective disease control programs and facilitate program delivery and implementation.

For her research in Dr. Barkema’s Industrial Research Chair in Infectious Diseases of Dairy Cattle, Caroline Ritter, a veterinarian from Germany and current PhD student at the University of Calgary, conducted interviews and questinnaires with dairy farmers. One objective was to determine farmers’ preferences regarding how to receive information on farm management and disease control. For example, do they prefer printed information or discussion groups? Knowing farmers preferred sources for information should facilitate communications.

Another major focus was to visit dairy farmers to discuss Johne’s disease and the Alberta Johne’s Disease Initiative (AJDI), to learn from their feedback, improve similar programs, and ultimately increase participation in disease control. Concurrently, environmental manure samples were collected and approximately half of the farms were positive for Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP), the organism causing Johne’s disease. Furthermore, she determined that farmers with a MAP-infected herd were not more or less likely to enroll in the AJDI as farmers with noninfected herds.

Research conducted at the University of Calgary confirmed that the herd veterinarian has a major influence on decision-making by many dairy farmers, particularly regarding implementation of management practices. A better understanding of how veterinarians communicate with farmers to educate and give advice will help to better understand management decisions of dairy farmers and prepare future veterinarians for more effective dairy practice. To assess communication and topics during herd health visits, veterinarians in Alberta and Ontario were equipped with video cameras to record a total of 100 farm visits. Analysis of these recordings is underway.

Understanding what factors influence farmers’ decision-making, how farmers prefer to receive information, and how veterinarians can communicate more effectively with farmers are important steps towards improving animal health and welfare.

Caroline Ritter’s research was funded by the NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Infectious Diseases of Dairy Cattle, Alberta Milk, the Margaret Gunn Endowment for Animal Research, and the Izaak Walton Killam Trust.

​

Diego Nobrega, Herman Barkema, University of Calgary

As antimicrobial resistance is a global concern, there is a broad push to reducing antibiotic use. For example, in the dairy sector, selective dry cow therapy (only some cows or quarters are treated at drying off) is being promoted in lieu of traditional blanket dry cow therapy involving treatment of every quarter.

Dr. Diego Nobrega, a Brazilian veterinarian doing his PhD at the University of Calgary with Dr. Herman Barkema, is characterizing antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from milk. A major focus of Barkema’s group as the Industrial Research Chair in Infectious Diseases of Dairy Cattle is to reduce antimicrobial resistance in dairy herds but concurrently to sustain the health and welfare of dairy cows. “The idea is to reduce antibiotic use, but ensuring that they are still used when truly needed” says Diego.

They recently studied associations between antibiotic use and resistance in herds of the Canadian Bovine Mastitis and Milk Quality Research Network. These herds had a wide range in levels of antibiotic use. The goal was to determine whether herds that had a lower use of antibiotics, including herds that used selective dry cow therapy, had less antimicrobial resistance in milk-borne bacteria.

Despite an intuitive notion that reducing antibiotic use will reduce antimicrobial resistance, they determined that the major risk factor for antimicrobial resistance was systemic use of antibiotics (injected into a muscle, under the skin or into a vein). Therefore, antimicrobial resistance was increased by systemic antibiotic thereapy, but not by infusing antibiotics into the udder (for clinical mastitis or dry cow therapy). Dr. Barkema concluded that “It seems antibiotics administered systemically are creating an environment favorable for developing antimicrobial resistance in bacteria present in the milk.”

According to their findings, use of selective dry cow therapy is unlikely to alter the incidence of antimicrobial resistance, although it will reduce antibiotic use. “Irrespective of the lack of associations between intramammary use and resistance, the dairy sector should decrease the use of antibiotics to retain its social license”, says Dr. Herman Barkema.

They also observed that the systemic use of three drug classes, all of high or very high importance for human medicine, was associated with resistance. “Third-generation cephalosporins, macrolides and penicillins are considered critically important antimicrobials for human medicine; two of them are in the highest priority category, according to the World Health Organization” says Dr. Diego Nobrega.

In summary, herds that use selective dry cow therapy used less antibiotics; however, that was not associated with less antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from milk. Further work is needed to improve the use of antibiotics, including ways to limit systemic treatments. Although selective dry cow therapy will reduce total use of antibiotics, rational use of systemic antibiotics is expected to have a greater impact on antimicrobial resistance.

​

Dr. Joyce Van Donkersgoed

​With increasing questions from the public on how livestock are raised, processors are increasingly pressured to provide proof that the fed cattle they purchase meet recognized welfare standards. National Cattle Feeders Association (NCFA), along with our federal processors, built a national feedlot welfare assessment/audit tool to provide reassurances to retailers and the public that feedlot cattle in Canada are raised humanely.

Over the last 3 years, an Animal Care Advisory Committee consisting of experts from Cargill, JBS, Tyson Foods, feedlot producers, feedlot veterinarians, animal scientists, and ethologists worked together to develop a practical, credible, and scientifically sound feedlot audit tool that would improve animal welfare while providing necessary reassurances to the public. The Canadian Beef Code of Practice was used as a basis for the development of the audit tool, along with information from the North American Meat Institute cattle handling audit tool, the US Beef Quality Assurance feedlot guidelines, and the Common Swine Industry Audit.

The audit tool was pilot tested across 32 feedlots of varying sizes across Canada and revised based on input from producers. As well, 2 large retail meetings were held in Calgary and Toronto gathering input from retailers, such as McDonalds, Walmart, Sobeys, Loblaws, Federated Co-op, and Overwaitea.

The Committee submitted the updated audit tool to the Professional Animal Auditor Certification Organization (PAACO) for certification against its international welfare standards. The audit tool was also submitted to National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) to receive recognition as having following their animal care assessment framework process. The audit tool received NFACC recognition and was certified by PAACO in December 2015 and fully recertified again in 2017.

During 2016 and 2017 additional feedlot benchmark pilot tests were done and the tool further refined. NCFA worked with PAACO to develop a PAACO certified 3rd party auditor training program as requested by our processors and retailers. The first PAACO feedlot auditor training program took place in Lethbridge in September with 16 participants, including participants from 3rd party audit companies like IMI Global, Food Safety Net Services (FSNS), and NSF International.

To help producers implement the animal health and welfare program on their operation and in preparation for audits from processors and retailers, NCFA has developed an eLearn training program on the NCFA webpage, along with other supporting materials, including the feedlot audit guide and audit checklist, articles on how to implement the program, and generic templates for protocols required in the program. Feedlot producers are encouraged to work with their feedlot veterinarians and nutritionists to implement the program.

Sections in the audit tool include:

1. Feedlot’s commitment to animal care;
2. Transportation;
3. Facilities;
4. Cattle handling;
5. Nutrition;
6. Animal health;
7. Environment;
8. Euthanasia;
9. Other feedlot working animals (horses, dogs); and
10. Egregious acts of neglect and wilful acts of abuse.

There is a requirement in the program that producers conduct their own self-assessment at least once annually to identify ways to continually improve animal health and welfare.

Many yards in Alberta are already implementing the program with the help from their feedlot veterinarians. The audit tool is a living document and as new information becomes known on cattle health and welfare and more audits are conducted with feedback from producers, the audit tool will be refined and kept current.

Funding for development of the program has been through the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency and Growing Forward Programs both provincially and federally.

For further information on the Canadian Feedlot Animal Care Assessment program, please contact NCFA (www.nationalcattlefeeders.ca).

By Victoria Kouritzin

Through genetic selection, the modern day broiler has undergone improvements in appetite, its ability to efficiently gain weight, and in its survivability. However, the resulting rapid growth in commercial broiler strains may also effect broiler gait. Broiler during a gait assessment trial wearing reflective markers for kinematic evaluation Current gait assessment methods can be subjective as they rely on observers to determine the quality of a broiler’s gait using a short multi-point scale. This often results in subtle lameness being missed as most assessment methods were designed to only give an indication of either no problem or whether there is a severe gait concern. Therefore, there is need for more objective means of assessing subtle differences in broiler gait. At the University of Alberta, applied ethologist, Dr. Clover Bench, and her team, are working on a new way to analyse and evaluate broiler gait using 3D kinematic motion capture technology. The results of this research will provide broiler genetics companies with a new means of assessing gait which could be included as part of selection programs.

Dr. Bench’s research program specializes in fine movements in an animal’s behaviour which cannot be detected without the aid of a digital medium. Her goal is to develop more objective and automated ways of evaluating animal behaviour and welfare states using technology platforms like 3D kinematics and infrared thermography. These sensitive technologies enable more precise measurements compared with current visual-based methods, allowing researchers to better understand the biomechanics of an animal’s movements and to better evaluate welfare phenotypes.

Currently, this broiler gait assessment research is in its infancy, but has already reached some significant milestones including the recent successful construction of a 3D kinematic model which was built by Sarah Nowicki, a recent graduate and member of Dr. Bench’s lab. “It’s one thing to read about the technology, but it is entirely different to actually watch the broilers in the system and see how accurately slight movements can be measured,” says Nowicki. Broiler during a gait assessment trial with kinematic cameras that record the subtle movements of reflective markers.

In order to build the model, broilers were taught to walk down a runway wearing reflective markers attached to important skeletal landmarks and joints associated with the legs, hips and back. Then, special kinematic cameras were used to digitally record the movements of each reflective marker as part of a 3D model of the broiler skeleton. Each model is built using several different time points in order to capture gait changes throughout broiler development.

In an upcoming trial, the gait of different strains of broilers will be recorded and assessed using the new kinematic method developed by Dr. Bench’s research group. In collaboration with the University of Alberta’s Dr. Graham Plastow (CEO for Livestock Gentec), gait types identified will then be compared to genomic test results in order to determine whether specific genomic markers are responsible for variations in gait phenotypes.

This research is funded by Alberta Agriculture and Forestry’s Strategic Research and Development Grant Program.

Bill desBarres – Horse Welfare Alliance of Canada

Compared to other sectors of the livestock industry equine may be classed as more fragmented. Many, if not most of the other livestock species are under or within umbrella organizations. Species populations in much of the livestock industry are concentrated by flocks, feedlots, herds etc. It may be submitted that for the most part patrons and enthusiasts of the equine sector may have fewer than four animals. For the most part owners of equine may not be members of a breed, discipline or other organization. This would submit most of the horse owners in Canada may be driven by a narrow passion. Therefore it may be reasonable to assume technical and/or science based research and the results thereof have not been adequately identified or circulated. We have not learned the priorities of need or how to direct the information to the majority of the equine community. Within very recent years efforts have commenced to identify critical areas of concern within the equine sector of the livestock industry.

1. BIOSECURITY: Biosecurity is a preventative process to reduce the chances of infectious diseases. The practice of biosecurity should be a planned process on every property where animals and/or humans frequent or reside. In 2011 Alberta Equestrian Federation (AEF) initiated a project with the cooperation of the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Growing Forward to promote more and better biosecurity practices in the equine community. The project grew to become a National program with the National Farm and Facility Level Biosecurity Standard for the Equine Sector manual now in print and available from all provincial/territorial and other equine organizations.

2. DISEASE SURVEILLANCE: Equine disease surveillance is extremely important to the health and welfare of animals, trade and public health including the ability to transport equine with minimal restrictions. It is, and will be critical to establish a path that will increase and facilitate communication respecting established and new infectious diseases with current and reliable reporting for horse custodians, owners, veterinarians and other equine stakeholders. Members of the Canadian Animal Health Surveillance System (CAHSS) are engaged in a communication strategy to better protect horses and the horse industry in Canada in cooperation with the Equine Disease Communication Centre (EDCC) in the United States. The communication system will be designed to seek and report real time information respecting disease identification and outbreaks through the Equine National Health Surveillance Network.

3. SURVEY OF AWARENESS, IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE TO THE CODE OF PRACTICE: The survey is targeted at all aspects and participants of the Canadian equine industry including but not limited to horse owners, custodians, equine based businesses and equestrians to determine knowledge and compliance to the standards and requirements set forth in the Code document. Code documents have been created for each livestock species in Canada. The sustainability of Canada’s equine industry depends in large part on a degree of education and communications available to horse owners. The Horse Welfare Alliance of Canada (HWAC) national survey (www.horsewelfare.ca) is a pre-cursor to the development of an animal care assessment program for equine, the framework (www.nfacc.ca) of which has been developed through the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC).

4. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: Fires, floods, vehicle incidents, building collapse and other disastrous events in recent years have indicated a lack of preparation to manage unforeseen and unplanned events. The Alberta Equestrian Federation has completed a survey and is proceeding to establish a collaborative program to include equine industry partners, government agencies and municipal representatives including indigenous communities. The program when completed will have developed tools, training programs and an Equine Emergency Resource Team that will improve efficiency and safety of people and equine that may be involved in an emergency situation.

Dr. Gosia Zobel, AgResearch Ltd.

As the public becomes more knowledgeable and more aware of food production practices, the need to provide assurances about the quality of life of our farm animals is growing in importance. This is, however, easier said than done given that many of the people not involved in agriculture rarely ask about how much milk a cow is producing but rather focus their questions on whether she is ‘happy’. As a behaviour scientist working in the Animal Welfare Team at AgResearch in New Zealand, I have been given the mandate to look for ways to ask cows how they feel – in essence I am trying to find ways to determine their emotional response. My work is supported by DairyNZ Ltd., an industry organization representing New Zealand’s dairy farmers. The industry recognizes that a good life for cows is not simply about the absence of negative experiences, but also the provision for positive ones.

This recognition poses a new question to scientists working with farm animals: namely – how do we measure how a cow is feeling? Obviously we can’t just simply ask her! Fortunately, there are a number of well-established scientific methods to approach this. Although the cow can’t tell us how she is feeling we can ask her to show us.

“Although the cow can’t tell us how she is feeling we can ask her to show us”

Evaluating anticipatory behaviour is a common method that has been used to help us understand the emotions of an animal. This is done by initially training an animal that, after a specific signal, will be given a reward. Then, by varying the time in between the signal and the reward, the animal will display certain behaviours while it waits – we refer to these as anticipatory behaviours. People that own a dog who loves to go for walks will see this every day! Think about how your dog reacts when you pick up the leash. Does your dog get excited as it anticipates the walk? What does the dog do if the phone rings and you take longer than normal to go for a walk or if your plans change all of a sudden and you put

the leash back in the drawer? You are observing anticipatory behaviour!

Once an animal learns to associate a signal with receiving a reward,researchers can measure the animal’s anticipation in the period between the signal and the reward, and then how this behaviour changes if the time between the signal and the reward is shorter or longer. If the reward is very important, we expect animals that show greater anticipation to be feeling more positive. This technique is well established in dogs and laboratory rodents, but until recently it has not been used in cattle.

In my work in New Zealand, I am using a similar experimental procedure to ask questions about how young dairy calves feel. I was fortunate to have Heather Neave, a Ph.D. student from my own alma matter, the University of British Columbia’s Animal Welfare Program, come and work with me for 6 months. Heather taught two groups of calves that after a signal, in this case a flashing light, they would soon get access to either more space or more space enriched with a brush and a hanging rope. We then increased the time between the flashing light and when the calves received access to the reward.

The first step of our analysis has been to identify any anticipation. We have identified one very promising behaviour where the calves shift their attention rapidly back and forth between the flashing light and the exit door leading to the extra space. What we are now looking at is to see if the calves that received the enriched space as their reward showed more of this anticipatory behaviour than the calves that were only given access to more space.

The exciting thing about research like this is that it often has multiple outcomes. While our goal was to indirectly assess animal emotion, the results also showed that calves interacted a lot with a rope and brushes in the enriched space; this is important information in itself, as it tells us that calves housed in standard housing would appear to benefit from some sort of enrichment.

Dr. Zobel studied animal welfare in the Animal Welfare Program at the University of British Columbia, conducting research in feeding behaviour in feedlot cattle, behaviour of dairy cattle around dry-off, and management of dairy goats. She is actively involved in both dairy cow and dairy goat research projects in New Zealand. The research program consists of a mix of work that can be immediately beneficial to producers and their animals, and more blue sky research questions that are anticipated to be found useful by industry in the future.

Dedicated, with love, to Banana the cat

Dr. Victoria Sandilands, Behavioural Scientist

The poultry industry has evolved over the last several decades and it is important to understand how and why those changes have taken place. In this article we will explore the modern laying hen and why we can be proud of these birds.

The modern laying hen evolved from the insectivorous jungle fowl, which lived in dense forests and spent 60-80% of the day foraging. Historically speaking, poultry were the responsibility of the “farmer’s wife”. It was her job to feed and house the birds as well as to collect the eggs. These systems were largely outdoors with many birds running around freely during the day to peck and scratch for feed. The birds themselves were typically dual purpose and kept on mixed farms. Housing was in mixed sex groups, in naturally lit barns or outdoors. Shelter was sometimes provided in the form of a coop that birds would use to roost in at night. Birds were fed home-grown cereals and kitchen scraps. They received little to no vaccination or health care and were largely exposed to predators. For these reasons, birds did not grow to their full potential.

As we began to better understand the needs of the laying hen, it became apparent that these animals needed to be cared for more intensively. Divergence began wherein birds were selected either for egg laying or meat production, but not both. Vaccines were developed, compound feed with added vitamins and minerals was created, and different housing systems were developed. Conventional housing systems (also called “battery” cages) came into style in the 1950s. In these systems, farmers could make better use of space (due to tiered cages), could easily identify and cull poor producers, and ensure proper hygiene of the birds because they were separated from their droppings, resulting in reduce disease and mortality.

Proportion (%) of laying hens housed, or egg produced, in different housing systems in the UK (Hewson 1986, Defra 2016)

Many of these changes have been positive for the welfare of the birds but have also introduced unique animal welfare concerns. As such, systems have again shifted to either free-run or enriched/furnished cage systems, both of which better provide for the behavioural needs of the birds in comparison to conventional systems.

Pullets

Pullets are provided with ad lib access to compound feed, fresh water, shelter, heated housed, and vaccinations. They may be raised in either cages or free-run in a barn. The birds are routinely beak trimmed at one day old using infrared laser treatments. Beak trimming is done to reduce damage caused by feather pecking and cannibalism later in life. Although bans on beak trimming have been attempted, the evidence has shown that the risk to birds is so much higher without trimming. Important considerations, however, are that:

– You are removing sensitive tissue (the beak tip)

– If a hot blade is used instead of infrared laser, it can cause neuroma formation in adult birds

– Infrared treatment has short-term effects on beak related behaviours (such as foraging or exploratory pecking)

– We are not treating the problem – why do birds peck each other?

We now know that there are a few management changes that can be made to help prevent feather pecking in a flock. These include:

– The use of dark brooders

– Making the rearing environment as similar to the laying environment as possible so that the transition is not as traumatic

– Getting chicks used to variety so that novelty is not upsetting

– Walk the flock at different times in different clothing

– Use various noises – a bucket falling, door banging, radio playing

Laying Hens

Pullets are transferred to the laying barn at approximately 16 weeks of age and are placed in either enriched/furnished cages or a single tier or multi-tier aviary barn. Free-range birds are also provided with an outdoor area.

“While enriched cages are a wonderful improvement over conventional systems,

they are not without issue”

​

Enriched or furnished cages are enhanced with scratching areas, nestboxes, and perches. While enriched cages are a wonderful improvement over conventional systems, they are not without issue. Some of these include the following:

– Hens cannot express all natural behaviours (such as dust bathing)

– Limited foraging – litter area is a scratch mat with feed dispensed onto it (some producers do not use this feature due to management issues)

– A nest box is provided but there is no nesting material so birds cannot nest build

– Birds are still kept on wire floors, which can lead to bumblefoot

– There is less weight-bearing exercise than in non-cage systems

– There is competition for resources, particularly feeder space

Despite these concerns, enriched systems are a great alternative for egg farmers as they allow for smaller groups that are easier to inspect. This makes is easier to identify unhealthy birds. These systems also provide secluded nesting areas and perches and generally show very low mortality.

In non-cage systems (free-run, aviary, free-range), there can be a number of issues as well. Some of these include:

– These are generally large flocks, thus birds are unable to recognize flock mates

– Frequent interactions with strange birds leading to aggression

– Inspection of individual birds is difficult

– Litter is unrewarding with respect to pecking behaviour (usually made up of wood shavings and droppings)

– Freedom of movement and structures within the system (e.g. perches) may cause keel bone damage through flapping/flying behaviours

– If given access to the outdoors:

– A static house cannot move around to fresh pasture; ground gets worn

– Birds need shelter (trees, man-made) to encourage ranging

– There is competition for resources (favoured nest boxes or other areas can cause piling and smothering)

However, these systems can be very positive for the birds because they allow for freedom of behaviour, including the ability to perch, fly, wing flap, forage, dust bathe, and nest.

Depopulation

Depopulation of an average laying barn occurs after one year of egg production. This is due to reduced egg quality and declining egg numbers as the birds age. Some farms choose to humanely euthanize the birds and compost them on-farm. Others choose to transport the birds for slaughter. This can be a major welfare concern for birds at end-of-lay. Laying hens tend to have a weakened skeleton and the chance of injury during transport can be high. Bone fractures have been found to be higher in birds removed from conventional cages, typically in the wings. However, half the birds in free-run systems had bone fractures at some point during their lives as well, most commonly in the keel bone. These birds are fragile. Researchers continue to work on bone density and strength to find a better strain of bird or better management or feeding systems.

Conclusions

Housing methods can change rapidly based on scientific evidence and, unfortunately, fads to please consumer demand. It is important to remember that every system has its drawbacks. We need to endeavor to do better for the birds’ sake while still maintaining production. The bottom line is that any system can perform for a farmer but must be managed well.

By Dr. Joao H.C. Costa

Why group housing? Housing of milk-fed calves in pairs or groups is rapidly increasing in popularity on Canadian dairy farms. Two key reasons behind this change are the use of automatic feeders to deliver milk and grain, and the potential of reducing labour requirements per head. Many studies support the practice of keeping calves in groups from birth. For example, calves can perform social behaviours and are better able to adapt to changes in their environment, such as regrouping or new foods. Research has also shown that socially housed calves are “smarter” in cognitively challenging tasks, especially when having to re-learn a known task.

Learning from others.

Calves raised in pairs or in groups learn how to eat solid feed sooner and have increased solid feed intakes before weaning; this benefit is especially clear when calves are fed higher volumes of milk. Grouped calves have the advantage of ‘social learning’– they can learn from their pen-mates where to find and how to eat solid feed. Socially housed calves also show a reduced response to weaning and improved performance when mixed with other calves after weaning. Housing young calves with an older, weaned companion can further stimulate feeding behaviour and growth before and after weaning.

Drink more milk.

Raising calves successfully in groups requires a different set of management practices compared to individual housing. One of the most important is that socially housed calves should have access to higher milk allowances of milk, fed via a teat; this allows calves to express their natural sucking behaviour and reduces the risk that calves will show abnormal cross-sucking on one another. Calves of course benefit in many ways from these higher milk rations, including higher growth, better health and higher milk production, particularly at first lactation.

“When it comes to group size, bigger is not better”

When it comes to group size, bigger is not better. Keeping large groups of calves together is associated with risks, including disease transmission. Groups of less than 8 calves are easiest to manage successfully, and whenever possible an ‘all-in-all-out’ system should be used to minimize the spread of disease between groups. This form of management helps to prevent the spread of infections between groups of animals raised in the same unit by allowing for cleaning and disinfection. Clean milk feeding equipment and bedding are also essential, as is the early identification and treatment of sick animals.

Test it out.

For producers that are currently using individual pens or hutches for their calves, we recommend starting by forming pairs of calves that are most similar in age. For some farms, a simple solution is to remove the partitions between individual enclosures. This requires no new equipment and can easily be adopted on many farms. If pairs work well, producers can easily expand the groups to 3’s or 4’s, again keeping the age range to a minimum.

For more about this study, e-mail Joao H C Costa (jhcardosocosta@gmail.com), Marina von Keyserlingk (marina.vonkeyserlingk@ubc.ca) or Dan Weary (dan.weary@ubc.ca).
The study is published in the Journal of Dairy Science and can be found at the following link: http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(16)00140-5/abstract
Citation: Costa, J. H. C., M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. “Invited review: Effects of group housing of dairy calves on behavior, cognition, performance, and health.” Journal of dairy science 99.4 (2016): 2453-2467.

​

By Victoria Kyeiwaa, Prairie Swine Centre

Research on different enrichment materials for pigs has shown that giving appropriate enrichments to growing pigs can result in reduced aggression, reduced fear, improved growth and fewer behavioural vices such as tail-biting. Some commonly used enrichment materials are straw, chains, wood, rope, mushroom compost, wood shavings, garden hose, peat moss and rubber balls.

Although European research has identified straw and other malleable and consumable materials as being optimal, there has been a reluctance to provide such materials in North America.

“Straw has been effective in grower-finisher pigs but there is an increased risk to biosecurity,” says Dr. Jennifer Brown, an ethology research scientist at PSC who is Kyeiwaa’s supervisor. “In this study, we included straw as a comparison treatment to the other enrichments. Small amounts of high fibre materials such as chopped or pelletized straw can be provided in a rack or hopper, for example, and will increase satiety (feeding satisfaction) in sows as well as providing enrichment.”

The sows in the study were offered three options for enrichment materials: rope, small amounts of straw, and wood on chains. A control group received no enrichment materials. Because pigs are social animals in a social environment, subordinate animals may be bullied and driven away from available resources by dominant animals. Thus, the study also investigated the influence of social status on the animals’ use of enrichment materials.

By observing the behaviour of both dominant and subordinate sows, the researchers determined if all sows, irrespective of social status, benefitted from enrichment use. Another common problem with enrichments is that animals lose interest in them over time. Kyeiwaa and the research team also determined whether it is beneficial to provide the same enrichments or if regularly rotating them increases their interest and value to the sows.

“Enrichment can help reduce aggression and stress and improve physiological function

for all ages of animals”

Initial results of this study have shown that sows spend more time in the enrichment area in the mornings after feeding. Both dominant and subordinate sows spent equal amounts of time present in the enrichment area but more dominant sows were observed contacting the enrichments. Sows in the Constant treatment interacted less with enrichments than in the Rotation or Stimulus treatments. This means that sows are more likely to lose interest when the same object is left in the pen continuously. Subordinate sows of parity 1 and 2 were more likely to be victims of aggression, with more lesions observed in this study. Although Dominant sows showed some evidence of greater contact with enrichments, Subordinate sows were also contacting and spent more time lying near the enrichments. There was little evidence of aggression observed and any aggression observed was mostly on day 1 after the enrichments were provided.

“Enrichment can help reduce aggression and stress and improve physiological function for all ages of animals,” says Brown. “Clearly there is a benefit to the industry, and providing enrichment will also help to address consumer concerns about barren conditions in pig housing. Once producers get comfortable with the concept of enrichment, I’m sure we will see them taking the lead on this and coming up with some great ideas.”

Dr. Elda Dervishi, University of Alberta

As we face the increasing size of the human population, it is projected that meat consumption will increase as well. At the same time, consumers are more aware and have increased their interest in traits related to animal welfare and health. By far, most pigs are finishers, kept in groups from 10 to, possibly, 400 or more. In these groups social skills of animals help to reduce stress. Too often we only observe from the negative side: traits like tail biting, aggressive behaviours resulting from stress, aggressive social interactions with other pigs and with humans.Behavioural traits have the potential to change the efficiency of pork production in the future, while at the same time improving welfare and reducing medication. Therefore, they are becoming economically important traits in breeding programs.

Pigs are social animals and they like to socialize and interact among themselves and with humans. They are frequently kept in larger groups, resulting in greater social interactions between individuals.Social interactions between pigs can be approached from heritable traits which are commonly referred as indirect genetic effects (IGE). This means that a pig can influence the trait value of a pen mate genetically, therefore offering the possibility to include IGE in the breeding programs and select pigs with better performance. Research has shown that pigs with better performance and product quality are also more social animals. Therefore, selection for social qualities may result in improved product quality.

Initial efforts in understanding pig behaviour started in 2009 at Wageningen University, Netherlands, with the project ‘Seeking Sociable Swine.’ The goal of this project was to improve social interactions among pigs by including social genetic effects in the breeding program and to explore the implications of this new method of selection for pig behaviour and well-being. The preliminary results of the project indicated the need to further investigate the genetics and physiology underlying such behavior.

Keeping pigs in groups allows the animals to socialize and interact.Very often, even with proper housing and management, these interactions are associated with negative behaviour such as tail biting, which is a major welfare problem for “victim” pigs and is also an indication of decreased welfare in the pigs performing it since this often indicates that there is something wrong with the system. Tail bitten pigs often have health problems and may have abscesses at slaughter with subsequent carcass condemnation. In addition to poor health, tail-bitten pigs can lose their appetite or eat less to avoid exposing their tail to further biting. Energy is used for fighting disease and not growth. Therefore, being able to select “social pigs” will largely help improve animal welfare, pig productivity and profitability by increasing consumer acceptance and satisfaction. In addition, economic losses due to carcass condemnation will be reduced.

“…being able to select “social pigs” will largely help improve animal welfare, pig productivity and profitability by increasing consumer acceptance and satisfaction”

It is important to investigate and understand the biology and physiology of malbehaviour. The major focus of our research at the University of Alberta will be to discover new markers/indicators for selecting social pigs by combining genomic and metabolic approaches. We are trying to understand the physiological basis of aggressive behaviour and its relationship with the newly important traits related to welfare in pigs. To address this issue we will measure behavioural traits in selected pigs for 6 months from birth to slaughter. In addition, blood samples will be collected at the same time during phenotyping. In this process, our partner Topigs Norsvin will provide the data (phenotypes, genotypes, and blood samples).

The next step will be metabolomics analyses which will be performed here at the University of Alberta. The advantage of this approach is that it offers the possibility to analyze over 100 metabolites for each animal. This approach will help to map biological processes associated with different behavioural traits such as tail biting, aggressiveness and social interaction. The next step, if successful, will be the identification of genetic and metabolomic markers that will be used to develop test kits. These kits will especially benefit the industry partner in their effort to develop innovative approaches to identify and select social animals for modern pork production.

Dr. Elda Dervishi finished her Ph.D studies at the University of Zaragoza, Spain. In 2011 she joined the University of Alberta as a postdoctoral fellow working on biomarkers of disease in dairy cows.She also worked for over a year at Alberta Pig Company. Her research aims to discover genomic and metabolic biomarkers of aggressive behaviour such as tail biting in pigs. This research is supported by funding from the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency (ALMA). Dr. Dervishi is supported by a Mitacs Accelerate award with Topigs Norsvin.

Dr. Melissa Moggy, Alberta Farm Animal Care

The decision to euthanise on farm is a difficult decision every producer has to make. Euthanising on farm may be necessary when a sick or injured animal is unresponsive to treatment, has a poor chance of recovery, and is unfit for transportation. When not performed correctly, on-farm euthanasia can cause unwanted pain and suffering.

Gunshot is one of the most common methods of euthanasia producers perform for production species.Benefits of this method are that it is suitable for all ages (given that the appropriate firearm is used), if properly performed it results in immediate unconsciousness, cost is relatively low, and it does not require the producer to get too close to the animal. This is likely not the most appropriate method for poultry, however. Regardless of the method used, producers must take safety measures for themselves and bystanders. Refer to your species-specific “Code of Practice” for more information on proper placement and appropriate methods of euthanasia (www.nfacc.ca).

After your chosen method of euthanasia has been performed, death will typically take a few minutes. To avoid unwanted pain and suffering, it is important to check if the animal is insensible to pain. To check for insensibility, touch the eyeball (not the eyelid) and see if the animal blinks – this is known as the corneal reflex. An insensible animal will not blink. If the animal does blink, you will need to perform a secondary method of euthanasia, often another gunshot.

“Keep your personal safety in mind!”

Keep your personal safety in mind! Animals will often flail for a few seconds after your chosen method is performed. Wait for this to stop before approaching the animal. Approach the animal from the back. Do not place yourself between the legs. If the animal is still conscious, it can kick out.

Once you have confirmed that the animal is insensible, you will need to monitor the animal until confirmed dead (this may take several minutes). To confirm death, check for a lack of heartbeat and breathing. To check for a heartbeat, place your hand (or a stethoscope if you have one) on the lower left chest. To check for breathing, watch the chest for any movement (this is an easier measurement in poultry). The heartbeat and breathing can often be slow and erratic at this time, so take the time to ensure that they have stopped.

If you are uncomfortable with your ability to euthanise your animals, work with your veterinarian.Your veterinarian can explain the appropriate methods for your operation.Your veterinarian can also work with you to make an on-farm euthanasia plan. Having a clear outline of action for your operation will make the process easier for you, your employees, and your animals.