Sees additional factors affecting milk production
I congratulate Dr. Lombard et al on their recent article titled “Risk of removal and effects on milk production associated with paratuberculosis status in dairy cows” (JAVMA, December 15, 2005, pp 1975–1981), based on data from the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) Dairy 2002 Survey. Their findings were consistent with what one would have anticipated: that dairy cows with strong positive results for serum ELISA antibodies against Mycobacterium avium subsp paratuberculosis (MAP) produced less milk and were more likely to be removed from the herd within one year of testing than other dairy cows. However, these findings did not necessarily support their conclusions that “without management changes designed to reduce the farm-level prevalence of MAP infection, paratuberculosis will continue to reduce farm income by decreasing milk production and potentially increasing premature removal from the herd.” The authors did not examine farm-level income and did not evaluate specific management changes designed to reduce the farm-level prevalence of MAP infection, nor did their analysis incorporate a time-series function sufficient to project their inferences into the future.
An analysis that was derived in part from NAHMS Dairy 1996 Survey data revealed that reduced milk production associated with Johne’s disease caused both the price of milk and producer surplus to rise.1 From 1996 to 2002, dairy productivity increased, while the price of milk fell considerably.2-3 Berghaus et al4 recently used NAHMS Dairy 2002 Survey data to identify epidemiologic risk factors (including management practices) associated with Johne’s disease, and Losinger5 showed how to evaluate the economic impacts of risk factors for Johne’s disease.
The culling rate of dairy cows was significantly higher in 2002 than in 1996,6 and it is possible that the relative importance of income from the sale of culled dairy cows was greater in 2002 than in 1996. It would be of interest to perform an economic analysis on Johne’s disease based on the NAHMS Dairy 2002 Survey data to determine how Johne’s disease affected dairy producers in 2002, compared with 1996, and to resolve the influences of other factors (such as reduced milk prices and increased productivity) on the dairy industry’s overall economic picture. Some dairy producers may have responded to the reduced dairy prices in 2002 by increased culling, and many producers may have been more greatly affected by the reduced price of milk than by Johne’s disease.
Willard C. Losinger, Losinger Economic Consulting Services Plainfield, Ill
- 1↑
Losinger WC. Economic impact of reduced milk production associated with Johne's disease on US dairy operations. J Dairy Res 2005; 72: 425–432.
- 2
USDA—National Agricultural Statistics Service. Milk production, disposition and income 1998 summary. NASS Report DA 1-2 (99). Washington, DC: USDA—National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1999.
- 3
USDA—National Agricultural Statistics Service. Milk production, disposition and income 2003 Summary. NASS Report DA 1-2 (04). Washington, DC: USDA—National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2004.
- 4↑
Berghaus RD, Lombard JE, Gardner IE, et al. Factor analysis of a Johne's disease risk assessment questionnaire with evaluation of factor scores and a subset of original questions as predictors of observed clinical paratuberculosis. Prev Vet Med 2005; 72: 291–305.
- 5↑
Losinger WC. Economic impacts of reduced milk production associated with epidemiologic risk factors for Johne's disease on US dairy operations. J Dairy Res [serial online] 2005. Available at: journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?iid=249190. Accessed Jan 12, 2006.
- 6↑
USDA. Part II: changes in the United States dairy industry, 1991–2002. Fort Collins, Colo: USDA, National Animal Health Monitoring System, 2003.
More on veterinarians’ responsibility in animal welfare
We believe it is a travesty that within this great profession our opinions on the acceptable standard of livestock welfare are at various stages of falling down the old slippery slope. This may have been precipitated by the evolution of the profession becoming more specialized or by the evolution of livestock production. At any rate, our roles have changed from performing countless technical tasks day in and day out to that of adviser: adviser on housing systems, adviser on preventative medicine, author of treatment protocols, and, certainly, adviser of animal handling and housing systems or techniques whereby welfare is met or disregarded. This is a wonderful opportunity and large responsibility. Unfortunately, when we let the economics of agribusiness alone (ie, when the CEO funds the pension plan rather than renovates the gestation stalls) dictate decisions in the realm of animal welfare, we have been denigrated to the very bottom of the proverbial slippery slope. At the bottom are widget factories that care about nothing other than how many widgets can be squeezed out of each producing unit. Our oath calls for so much more.
Certainly, we have a responsibility to society and our clients, as Dr. Gonder points out (JAVMA, December 15, 2005, p 1898), but we do not think that in any way trumps our responsibility to the relief of animal suffering.1 Can we not serve our clients, society, and our patients without wearing different hats? And although it can be difficult to display with numbers (and this is the best part), we have no doubt that economic success of an enterprise and appropriate welfare measures are not mutually exclusive. This is where Dr. Gonder makes his distinction between quantifiable data and what can only be felt. Agreeably, it is difficult to quantify how 10-foot versus 14-foot sidewalls in a freestall barn benefit the farm’s bottom line other than the additional cost of material, but experience tells us it’s there.
Do we discredit the credence of veterinary opinions other than our own only because we do not have direct contact with a given situation (be it food production or the treatment of geriatric cats)? Absolutely not, and in our opinion Dr. Gonder’s conclusion of “to each their own” really undermines our professional integrity and cohesiveness. Furthermore, we do firmly believe that, as a profession, we can, rather we must, come to some moral consensus whereby the public, our clients, the profession, and our patients can sleep easy.
Matthew J. Boyle, DVM
Terry Homan, DVM
Seymour, Wis
Veterinarian's oath. In: 2005 AVMA membership directory and resource manual. Schaumburg, Ill: AVMA, 2005.
Dr. Gonder responds:
Drs. Boyle and Homan have put some thought into this subject, but I disagree on several points.
I do not believe that disagreements and discussions within the profession are a travesty. However, all sides must be carefully considered and consequences evaluated. To me, proceeding on the basis of nonquantifiable factors is the slippery slope. Crates are bad > pens are bad > housing animals is bad > taking care of animals is bad since they should all live naturally….
Agribusiness and farming are not hobbies; they are livelihoods. Losing sight of that imperils those we serve. We can certainly suggest farmers abandon gestation stalls, gestation pens, housed pigs, or animal agriculture (depending on one’s viewpoint). It becomes more difficult when asked, how do we justify the additional expense to our customers, shareholders, contractor farmers, and employees? For the nation’s largest hog producer, the estimated capital cost to convert from gestation crates to pens is $45 million, excluding costs to source and repopulate with more docile swine since more aggressive lines do not do well in group situations. Aggressive sows will dominate—the submissive sows lose.
We began our hog business 15 years ago with a docile strain, gestation pens, a good stock-handling ethic, and the hope that gestation pens and advanced husbandry would yield longevity in the marketplace. With our more docile genetic line, estrus detection is easier and sow condition improved.
To date, there is no market premium for our choice of gestation housing. We like it for our situation and enjoy the increased interaction with our animals. But the market rewards neither our housing nor husbandry, except through efficiency. Our efforts cannot be justified by the market or with different genetics. If the $45 million were to be spent and genetic lines discarded, the funds and genetics must come from somewhere—we cannot wish them into existence. Genetic lines take time to develop, and funds must come from not paying for something else. Feed and fuel must be provided; farmers, employees, investors, and taxes must be equitably paid; and markets must be secured in a global economy. Ignoring these says we don’t care about the livelihood of our clients and their customers, be they corporate or private.
Veterinarians rendering advice that increases costs without return do not retain the privilege of advising their clients over the long haul. The trusting clients exit the business, and those who realize what’s happening find other advisors. We cannot influence production practices over the long term if we are not there. Therefore, the best long-term advice is to recommend a change when it becomes economically viable, as I believe has been done by those well-versed in how to accomplish changes of this magnitude when the situation is factually debatable and the markets are volatile. It was not that long ago that pork margins were terrible and bankruptcies were common—something those in less volatile businesses with more controllable input costs and incomes may wish to reflect on.
Eric Gonder, DVM, PhD, DACPV
Goldsboro, NC
Questions ethics of onychectomy in cats
As titled, the article by Dr. Curcio et al (JAVMA, January 1, 2006, pp 65–68) provides an “Evaluation of signs of postoperative pain and complications after forelimb onychectomy in cats receiving buprenorphine alone or with bupivacaine administered as a four-point regional nerve block.” While the consideration given to pain alleviation following onychectomy is necessary and laudable, the ethics of performing this procedure as a routine practice to the extent that almost a quarter of the cat population in the United States (14 million) is declawed, according to these authors, surely needs to be examined. This is especially pertinent considering the evidence of the painful nature of this procedure and associated postoperative complications of chronic pain, infection, and suffering. Surely the justifications for performing forelimb onychectomies trivialize concern for cats’ welfare and psychologic well-being. Part of being a cat is to have claws. Out of respect for the nature of cats and their basic behavioral requirements in the confined domestic environment, caring and responsible cat owners effectively train their cats to use scratch-posts, scratchboards, and carpeted “condos” rather than resort to routine declawing, which amounts to a mutilation for convenience.
As a profession, are we not giving a mixed message to the public in advocating companion animal health and welfare on the one hand and not abandoning such practices that are considered unethical by veterinarians and their clients in many other countries?
Michael W. Fox, DSc, PhD, BVetMed, Minneapolis, Minn
The authors respond
In our article, Figures 1 and 2 refer to discomfort scores recorded during the first 24 hours after cats underwent onychectomy (declaw). Appendix 1 describes the scores used by the observer who scored each cat’s paws. Our observed scores of 2 to 4 meant that cats retracted their paws when handled and may have had minimally perceptive lameness. We have observed these results for years following the proper performance of the onychectomy.1 Proper procedure includes removal of the third phalanx, according to good surgical principles, by means of scalpel (or laser) and gluing the wound so that hemorrhage does not occur, there is no dead space, and excessive glue does not remain in the wound. Bandages are not necessary; cats hate bandages, and we believe that the use of tight, restrictive bandages after surgery is the principal reason that the procedure has been evaluated by some as painful.
We are extensively involved with surgery and clinical practice. We believe in and practice pain relief to the best of our abilities. We recognize that the discomfort or potential pain associated with a properly performed onychectomy is trivial, compared with many procedures that are completed every day (eg, removal of body parts and invasion of body cavities). Dr. Fox is concerned for “cats’ welfare and psychologic well-being” and notes that “part of being a cat is to have claws.” We believe it is fair to note that “part of being a cat” is to have testicles or ovaries; chase and kill songbirds; not undergo chemotherapy for leukemia; have a natural immune system (not one enhanced by vaccines that may cause tumors); and have all of their bones, skin, and lung lobes. We agree with Dr. Fox that neutering our pets and treating them for disease are good.2 Because the potential pain associated with a properly performed onychectomy is trivial, compared with many procedures, we also believe that a properly performed procedure is appropriate for feline companion animal practice.
Dr. Fox states what “caring and responsible cat owners” should do and notes that cat owners “resort to…mutilation for convenience” when they choose to have their cats declawed. We believe these statements demonstrate a lack of knowledge of a properly performed procedure and patronize and belittle those caring cat owners who have chosen to declaw their cats.
Dr. Fox refers to “…(declaw) practices that are considered unethical by veterinarians and their clients in many other countries.” Dr. Fox has stated that “some European countries are very pro letting cats run free, that it’s their right to live naturally,” a position he clearly disagrees with.2 We believe that the decision to declaw a cat is largely predicated on whether the cat is an indoor companion or runs free.
We hope that if Dr. Fox is truly committed to the relief of pain and suffering that he redirect his efforts to any of the multitude of areas within the human and animal kingdom where true pain and suffering really exist.
Joe Hauptman, DVM, MS, DACVS
Keith Curcio, DVM
Lori Bidwell, DVM
George Bohart, DVM, Michigan State University East Lansing, Mich
- 1↑
Mison MB, Bohart GH, Walshaw R, et al. Use of carbon dioxide laser for onychectomy in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002; 221: 651–653.
- 2↑
Fox MW. Companion animal concerns, 2004. Available at: tedeboy.tripod.com/drmichaelwfox/id25.html. Accessed Jan 12, 2006.
Calls attention to the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights
It has become apparent over the past few years that we, as a profession, have different ideas within our ranks about animal welfare issues. Although debates within our profession over such issues are for the most part civil and well-intentioned, it appears that there have been attempts to blur the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights. It also must be mentioned that there is some overlap between the positions. Purposeful or not, the watering down of this clear distinction does a disservice to anyone concerned or involved in improving the lot of our patients and charges.
Clearly, there are those who identify themselves as animal rights advocates, those who would endow animals with rights similar to those afforded to human beings. They may be passive, assertive, or fanatical in their support of their views, but many who hold this position at the very least exhibit a degree of intellectual honesty in expressing their opinions. While individually we may agree or disagree with their positions, it is important to recognize that there is some merit to being up-front about one’s ideas.
By the same token, it would seem clear that with very few exceptions (every profession has a few rotten apples), we would all consider ourselves to be animal welfare advocates and back it up with our actions. Unfortunately, the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare may be lost to lay people as well as with some veterinarians, in particular those who would take extreme positions. When this distinction is lost, we become potential targets to an uninformed public who may be susceptible to clever manipulation by groups who are truly animal rights activists. Witness PETA’s attack on the AVMA in the June 21, 2004, New York Times as referenced on the AVMA Web site.
It is not an uncommon tactic of animal rights activists to label us animal welfare advocates as uncaring and unconcerned about our patients, pets, and the general animal kingdom if we do not agree with their positions. This divisive distortion is of no benefit to either camp and is, in fact, counterproductive to efforts to improve animal welfare.
We need, as a profession, to be proactive in our discussion and promotion of animal welfare issues; here, animal rights advocates and activists experience common ground. As well, we need to clearly demarcate and define what animal welfare is and what it is not.
John S. Parker, DVM, Novi, Mich