Journal Articles
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item Objective measures for the assessment of post-operative pain in Bos indicus Bull calves following castration(MDPI AG, 2017-09) Musk GC; Jacobsen S; Hyndman TH; Lehmann HS; Tuke SJ; Collins T; Gleerup KB; Johnson CB; Laurence MThe aim of the study was to assess pain in Bos indicus bull calves following surgical castration. Forty-two animals were randomised to four groups: no castration (NC, n = 6); castration with pre-operative lidocaine (CL, n = 12); castration with pre-operative meloxicam (CM, n = 12); and, castration alone (C, n = 12). Bodyweight was measured regularly and pedometers provided data on activity and rest from day -7 (7 days prior to surgery) to 13. Blood was collected for the measurement of serum amyloid A (SAA), haptoglobin, fibrinogen, and iron on days 0, 3 and 6. Bodyweight and pedometry data were analysed with a mixed effect model. The blood results were analysed with repeated measure one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). There was no treatment effect on bodyweight or activity. The duration of rest was greatest in the CM group and lowest in the C group. There was a significant increase in the concentrations of SAA, haptoglobin, and fibrinogen in all of the groups from day 0 to 3. Iron concentrations were not different at the time points it was measured. The results of this study suggest that animals rest for longer periods after the pre-operative administration of meloxicam. The other objective assessments measured in this study were not able to consistently differentiate between treatment groups.Item Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the "Five Freedoms" towards "A Life Worth Living".(14/03/2016) Mellor DJThe Five Freedoms have had major impact on animal welfare thinking internationally. However, despite clear initial statements that the words 'freedom from' should indicate 'as free as possible from', the Freedoms have come to be represented as absolute or fundamental freedoms, even rights, by some animal advocate and other groups. Moreover, a marked increase in scientific understanding over the last two decades shows that the Freedoms do not capture the more nuanced knowledge of the biological processes that is germane to understanding animal welfare and which is now available to guide its management. For example, the named negative experiences of thirst, hunger, discomfort and pain, and others identified subsequently, including breathlessness, nausea, dizziness, debility, weakness and sickness, can never be eliminated, merely temporarily neutralised. Each one is a genetically embedded element that motivates animals to behave in particular ways to obtain specific life-sustaining resources, avoid or reduce physical harm or facilitate recovery from infection or injury. Their undoubted negativity creates a necessary sense of urgency to respond, without which animals would not survive. Also, the temporary neutralisation of these survival-critical affects does not in and of itself generate positive experience. This questions the commonly held assumption that good animal welfare will result when these internally generated negative affects are minimised. Animals may also experience other negative affects that include anxiety, fear, panic, frustration, anger, helplessness, loneliness, boredom and depression. These situation-related affects reflect animals' perceptions of their external circumstances. Although they are elicited by threatening, cramped, barren and/or isolated conditions, they can often be replaced by positive affects when animals are kept with congenial others in spacious, stimulus-rich and safe environments which provide opportunities for them to engage in behaviours they find rewarding. These behaviours may include environment-focused exploration and food acquisition activities as well as animal-to-animal interactive activities, all of which can generate various forms of comfort, pleasure, interest, confidence and a sense of control. Animal welfare management should aim to reduce the intensity of survival-critical negative affects to tolerable levels that nevertheless still elicit the required behaviours, and should also provide opportunities for animals to behave in ways they find rewarding, noting that poor management of survival-critical affects reduces animals' motivation to utilize such rewarding opportunities. This biologically more accurate understanding provides support for reviewing the adequacy of provisions in current codes of welfare or practice in order to ensure that animals are given greater opportunities to experience positive welfare states. The purpose is to help animals to have lives worth living, which is not possible when the predominant focus of such codes is on survival-critical measures. Finally, an updated characterisation of animal welfare that incorporates this more accurate understanding is presented.Item Carcass characteristics and meat quality of Hereford sired steers born to beef-cross-dairy and Angus breeding cows.(2016-11) Coleman LW; Hickson RE; Schreurs NM; Martin NP; Kenyon PR; Lopez-Villalobos N; Morris STSteers from Angus, Angus×Holstein Friesian, Angus×Holstein Friesian-Jersey and Angus×Jersey cows and a Hereford sire were measured for their carcass and meat quality characteristics. Steers from the Angus×Holstein Friesian cows had a greater final body weight and carcass weight (P<0.05). Steers from Angus×Jersey cows had the lowest carcass weight and dressing-out percentage (P<0.05). There was a greater fat depth over the rump at 12 and 18months of age for the steers from Angus cows (P<0.05) but, not at 24months of age. The steers had similar meat quality characteristics across the breed groups. Steers from Angus×Holstein Friesian and Angus×Jersey cows had a higher ratio of n6 to n3 fatty acids. Using beef-cross-dairy cows to produce steers for meat production does not impact on meat quality. Using Jersey in the breed cross reduced the carcass tissues in the live weight and the potential meat yield.
