Article

Analgesic drug administration and attitudes about analgesia in cattle among bovine practitioners in the United States

Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (Impact Factor: 1.67). 03/2011; 238(6):755-67. DOI: 10.2460/javma.238.6.755
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine current attitudes and practices related to pain and analgesia in cattle among US veterinarians in bovine practice and to identify factors associated with these attitudes and practices.
Web-based survey. Sample-3,019 US members of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) with e-mail addresses.
Veterinarians were invited via e-mail to participate in a Web-based survey. Respondents replied to questions related to pain and analgesia and supplied personal, professional, and demographic information. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed, and associations among various factors were examined.
666 surveys (25.5% response rate) were analyzed. Among common procedures and medical conditions of cattle listed on the survey, castration of dairy calves < 6 months old was subjectively estimated as causing the least pain; abdominal surgery, toxic mastitis, and dehorning of calves > 6 months old were assessed as causing the greatest pain. Respondents reported not providing analgesic drugs to approximately 70% of calves castrated at < 6 months of age. The most commonly administered analgesics were NSAIDs, local anesthetics, and α(2)-adrenergic receptor agonists. Significant associations were detected among respondent characteristics and pain ratings, percentages of cattle treated, and opinions regarding analgesia.
Results provide information on current attitudes and practices related to pain and analgesia in cattle among US veterinarians in bovine practice and can be considered in the development of policies and protocols for pain management in cattle. These data can be compared with those of future studies to examine changes over time.

1 Follower
 · 
165 Views
  • Source
    • "rvice ( FSIS ) in 2010 ( USDA 2012 ) , accounting for 14% of violations . Of the 285 flunixin violations , 71% were in cull dairy cows and 21% in bob veal calves . This is consistent with usage from a recent survey of bovine practitioners , which reported that dairy cattle accounted for the largest percentage ( 86% ) of cases treated with NSAIDs ( Fajt et al . 2011 ) . The high incidence of violative residues in cull dairy cows has resulted in a new flunixin screening programme initiated by the USFDA in 2012 for milk ( USFDA 2012 ) . A recentlypublishedsmallsurveil- lanceofmilksamplesfoundapositiveviolationrateof 0.2%forthemarkerresidue,5-hydroxyflunixin(Kissell etal.2013)."
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Frequent violation of flunixin residues in tissues from cattle has been attributed to non-compliance with the USFDA-approved route of administration and withdrawal time. However, the effect of administration route and physiological differences among animals on tissue depletion has not been determined. The objective of this work was to develop a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to predict plasma, liver and milk concentrations of flunixin in cattle following intravenous (i.v.), intramuscular (i.m.) or subcutaneous (s.c.) administration for use as a tool to determine factors that may affect the withdrawal time. The PBPK model included blood flow-limited distribution in all tissues and elimination in the liver, kidney and milk. Regeneration of parent flunixin due to enterohepatic recirculation and hydrolysis of conjugated metabolites was incorporated in the liver compartment. Values for physiological parameters were obtained from the literature, and partition coefficients for all tissues but liver and kidney were derived empirically. Liver and kidney partition coefficients and elimination parameters were estimated for 14 pharmacokinetic studies (including five crossover studies) from the literature or government sources in which flunixin was administered i.v., i.m. or s.c. Model simulations compared well with data for the matrices following all routes of administration. Influential model parameters included those that may be age or disease-dependent, such as clearance and rate of milk production. Based on the model, route of administration would not affect the estimated days to reach the tolerance concentration (0.125 mg kg(-1)) in the liver of treated cattle. The majority of USDA-reported violative residues in liver were below the upper uncertainty predictions based on estimated parameters, which suggests the need to consider variability due to disease and age in establishing withdrawal intervals for drugs used in food animals. The model predicted that extravascular routes of administration prolonged flunixin concentrations in milk, which could result in violative milk residues in treated cattle.
    Food Additives and Contaminants - Part A Chemistry, Analysis, Control, Exposure and Risk Assessment 08/2014; 31(9):1-16. DOI:10.1080/19440049.2014.938363 · 2.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Thomsen et al. (2012) reported highly positive attitudes towards use of analgesics in dairy cows by Danish veterinarians, which suggest a high animal welfare awareness among Nordic veterinarians. This awareness was also reflected in the scores for disbudding pain without medication which were higher in this study than those reported in the UK and the US (Huxley and Whay, 2006; Fajt et al., 2011). The relatively high sensitivity to pain revealed in current survey may be partly driven by the large proportion of females within veterinary profession in Finland. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The treatment of cattle pain often relies upon veterinarians. The aim of this study was to assess the effect on pain assessment of veterinarians’ skills, attitudes, education and empathy, and to examine how these factors influence disbudding pain management. A web-based questionnaire was sent to Finnish veterinary students in either the preclinical or clinical stage, and also to production-animal practice oriented veterinarians. The questionnaire recorded demographics, statements of opinions, pain scoring of cattle conditions and procedures. Empathy towards humans (Interpersonal Reactivity Index, IRI) and reworded IRI to measure empathy towards animals were also covered. The overall response rate was approximately 40%. The association between pain and empathy scores were analyzed by Pearsońs correlation, and the factors affecting pain scores and empathy towards animals analyzed using general linear models. The need for pain medication of calves during disbudding was well recognized and the intention to treat such pain was very common. Higher mean scores for cattle pain were associated with greater empathy towards humans. On average, respondents’ empathy towards animals was greater than towards humans, and was associated with respondents’ empathy towards humans, family size and attachment to family pet.
    The Veterinary Journal 02/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.02.005 · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Gender may play a role in assessing pain in animals. Several studies showed that female veterinarians assess pain in animals to be stronger than male veterinarians do (Capner et al., 1999; Huxley and Whay, 2006; Fajt et al., 2011). Also female veterinary students show more empathy than male colleagues toward animals (Paul and Podberscek, 2000; Kielland et al., 2009; Hazel et al., 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pain is an important indicator of poor welfare of live- stock. Despite this, pain has largely gone unrecognized in farm animals due to attitudes of producers and vet- erinarians, although they play a key role in monitoring and managing the perception of animal pain. Producer attitudes toward animal welfare influence livestock management and production. The aim was to quantify dairy producer attitudes to the painfulness of various cattle diseases and disbudding, a painful routine pro- cedure performed on farm to ensure safer handling of cattle. A questionnaire on disbudding-related opinions and practices was sent to 1,000 Finnish dairy produc- ers (response rate: 45%). Attitudes toward disbudding were gauged using a 5-point Likert scale and attitudes to cattle pain scored on an 11-point numerical rating scale. Principal components analysis was used to assess the loadings, which were further tested for differences between producer gender and housing systems with Mann-Whitney U-tests, and between herd milk yield, herd size, and age and work experience of producers with a Kruskal-Wallis test. Four main factors were identified: factor I (“taking disbudding pain seriously”), factor II (“sensitivity to pain caused by cattle diseas- es”), factor III (“ready to medicate calves myself”), and factor IV (“pro horns”). Female producers took disbud- ding pain more seriously, were more sensitive to pain caused to cattle by diseases, and were more ready to medicate disbudded calves than male producers. Pro- ducers with tie-stalls favored horns over producers with freestalls. Male producers with tie-stalls were sensitive to cattle pain and preferred horns over male producers with freestalls. Female producers with freestalls were more ready to medicate calves, but did not prefer horns more than female producers with tie-stalls. Taking disbudding seriously correlated with sensitivity to pain caused by cattle diseases. Producers with low-milk- yielding herds were less willing to medicate calves and more willing to keep cattle with horns than producers with higher-yielding herds. Older producers were more sensitive to cattle pain than middle-aged and younger producers. No effect was established for taking disbud- ding pain seriously: the pro-horn factor was associated with work experience, age, and herd size. Women rated pain higher and were more positive toward pain medi- cation for animals than men. Maintaining horns are more important for producers with tie-stalls than for those with freestalls
    Journal of Dairy Science 09/2013; 96(11):1-10. DOI:10.3168/jds.2012-6128 · 2.55 Impact Factor
Show more