Mahmut KALİBER, Çağrı Çağlar SİNMEZ, İsmail ÜLGER, Ali YİĞİT, Gökhan ASLIM

Technical staffs’ knowledge and attitudes survey regarding tail docking on dairy farms of Turkey

The study examined the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudinal drivers of technical staff and breeders regarding tail docking and the incidence of docking on large-scale dairy farms (≥100 cattle) in Turkey. Survey responses were analyzed using the Mann−Whitney U test to determine attitudinal differences between respondents who self-reported docking tails or not docking their cattle. Using face-toface interviews of 210 respondents at 206 Turkish dairy farms was carried out. Tail docking procedures were practiced on 27.1% of the surveyed farms. At the time of the tail docking, 57.9% of cattle were less than 12 months of age. The most frequent tail docking method was amputation by rubber ring constriction (61.4%), with the following most common method being a surgical one (33.3%). The most preferred location for the tail docking was between the sixth and seventh coccygeal vertebrae (29.8%), followed by level with midudder (26.3%). The most common reasons given by respondents for docking tails were to increase hygiene (64.8%), the comfort of the workers (62.4%), and reduce the risk of mastitis (60.9%). The survey results of the present study indicated that, without clear regulations or laws, the tail docking of dairy cattle varies substantially with personal preference rather than scientific justification in Turkey. Technical staff and breeders should be educated and been aware of humane alternative methods (switch trimming) for tail docking in dairy cattle, and societal pressure and public perceptions considered about tail docking on Turkish dairy farms.

PDF

___

1. Wolf C, Tonsor GT, McKendree MGS, Thomson DU, Swanson JC. Public and farmer perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 2016; 99: 1-12. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-10619
2. Widmar NO, Morgan CJ, Wolf CA, Yeager EA, Dominick S et al. US resident perceptions of dairy cattle management practices. Agricultural Sciences 2017; 8: 645-656. doi: 10.4236/ as.2017.87049
3. Barnett JL, Coleman GJ, Hemsworth PH, Newman EA, Fewings-Hall S et al. Tail docking and beliefs about the practice in the Victorian dairy industry. Australian Veterinary Journal 1999; 77 (11): 742-747. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1999. tb12919.x
4. Halverson M. Tail docking dairy cattle. Animal Welfare Institute Quarterly 2002; 51 (4): 18.
5. Schreiner DA, Ruegg PL. Effects of tail docking on milk quality and cow cleanliness. Journal of Dairy Science 2002a; 85 (11): 2503-2511. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74333-6
6. Stull CL, Payne MA, Berry S, Hullinger PJ. Evaluation of the scientific justification for tail docking in dairy cattle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2002; 220 (9): 1298-1303.
7. Ruegg PL. Tail docking and animal welfare. The Bovine Practitioner 2004; 38: 24-29.
8. Fulwider WK, Grandin T, Rollin BE, Engle TE, Dalsted N et al. Survey of dairy management practices on one hundred thirteen North Central and Northeastern United States dairies. Journal of Dairy Science 2008; 91 (4): 1686-1692. doi: 10.3168/ jds.2007-0631
9. Weary DM, Schuppli CA, Von Keyserlingk MAG. Tail docking dairy cattle: responses from an online engagement. Journal of Animal Science 2011; 89: 3831-3837. doi: 10.2527/jas.2011- 3858
10. Phipps AM, Matthews L, Rand Verkerk GA. Tail docked dairy cattle: fly induced behaviour and adrenal responsiveness to ACTH. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 1995; 55: 61-63.
11. Eicher SD, Morrow-Tesch JL, Albright JL, Williams RE. Tail docking alters fly numbers, fly-avoidance behaviors, and cleanliness, but not physiological measures. Journal of Dairy Science 2001; 84 (8): 1822-1828. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022- 0302(01)74621-8
12. Tucker CB, Fraser D, Weary DM. Tail docking dairy cattle: effects on cow cleanliness and udder health. Journal of Dairy Science 2001; 84: 84-87. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022- 0302(01)74455-4
13. Eicher SD, Dailey JW. Indicators of acute pain and fly avoidance behaviors in Holstein calves following tail-docking. Journal of Dairy Science 2002; 85 (11): 2850-2858. doi: 10.3168/jds. s0022-0302(02)74372-5
14. Tom EM, Duncan IJH, Widowski TM, Bateman KG, Leslie KE. Effects of tail docking using a rubber ring with or without anesthetic on behavior and production of lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 2002a; 85 (9): 2257-2265. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74305-1
15. Eicher SD, Cheng HW, Sorrells AD, Schutz MM. Behavioral and physiological indicators of sensitivity or chronic pain following tail docking. Journal of Dairy Science 2006; 89 (8): 3047-3051. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72578-4
16. Ventura BA, Croney CC. To meet the ethical imperative of telos in modern dairy production: societal concern for naturalness, animal welfare, and opportunities for resolution through science. In: Engle T, Klingborg DJ, Rollin BE (editors). The Welfare of Cattle. 1st ed. USA: CRC Press, 2019. pp. 251-270.
17. Yaşar A. Etik ve mevzuat yönüyle hayvan gönenci. 1st ed. Konya, Turkey: Billur Press; 2017.
18. Sinmez ÇÇ, Yiğit A, Ülger İ, Yaşar A. Tail docking and ear cropping in ruminants: a comparison of welfare aspects in the world and Turkey. Journal of Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Erciyes University 2016; 13 (1): 58-69.
19. Valros A, Janczak AM, Rodenburg B, Nordgreen J, Boyle L. What do we know about the link between ill-health and tail biting in pigs? In: Proceedings of the 53rd Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology; Bergen, Norway; 2019. pp. 290.
20. Serpell JA. Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare 2004; 13: 145-151.
21. Krejcie VR, Morgan WD. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1970; 30: 607-610. doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308
22. Tom EM, Rushen J, Duncan IJH, Passillé de AM. Behavioural, health and cortisol responses of young calves to tail docking using a rubber ring or docking iron. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 2002b; 82: 1-9. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022- 0302(02)74305-1
23. Edwards S, Bennett P. Tales about tails: is the mutilation of animals justifiable in their best interests or in ours? In: Appleby MC, Weary DM, Sandøe P (editors). Dilemmas in animal welfare. 1st ed. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Press, 2014. pp. 6-27.
24. Lombard JE, Tucker CB, Von Keyserlingk MAG, Kopral CA, Weary DM. Associations between cow hygiene, hock injuries, and free stall usage on US dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 2010; 93 (10): 4668-4676. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3225
25. Frantz LM, Morabito EA, Dolecheck KA, Bewley JM. Short communication: a comparison of cow cleanliness, fly population, and fly avoidance behaviors among docked, switch-trimmed, and switch-intact dairy cows in 3 commercial dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 2019; 102: 1584-1588. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-14921
26. Ingle HD, Rice CA, Black RA, Childers SZ, Eberhart NL et al. Effect of switch trimming on udder and teat hygiene of dairy cows. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2018; 21 (3): 239-243. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2017.1393339
27. Petrie N, Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ, Bruce RA, Ward RN. The behaviour of calves tail docked with a rubber ring used with or without local anaesthetic. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 1995; 55: 58-60.
28. Schreiner DA, Ruegg PL. Responses to tail docking in calves and heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 2002b; 85 (12): 3287- 3296. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74417-2
29. Eicher SD, Morrow Tesch JL, Albright JL, Dailey JW, Young CR et al. Tail-docking influences on behavioral, immunological, and endocrine responses in dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 2000; 83 (7): 1456-1462. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022- 0302(00)75017-X
30. Kroll LK, Grooms DL, Siegford JM, Schweihofer JP, Daigle CL. Effects of tail docking on behavior of confined feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 2014; 92: 4701-4710. doi: 10.2527/ jas.2014-7583
31. Fisher MW, Gregory NG. Reconciling the differences between the length at which lambs’ tails are commonly docked and animal welfare recommendations. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 2007; 67: 32-38.
32. Troncoso RH, Herzberg DE, Meneses CS, Müller HY, Werner MP et al. Mechanical/thermal sensitivity and superficial temperature in the stump of long-termtail-docked dairy cows. Peer Journal 2018; 6: 1-12. doi: 10.7717/peerj.5213
33. Mackintosh CG, Schollum LM, Blackmore DK, Marshall RB. Epidemiology of leptospirosis in dairy farm workers in the Manawatu. Part II: a case-control study of high and low risk farms. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 1982; 30: 73-76. doi: 10.1080/00480169.1982.34886
34. Miller SR. Survey of tail docking practices of Michigan livestock producers. Center for Economic Analysis Report. Michigan State University, USA: 2010. pp. 1-14.