Minimising the stress of weaning of beef calves: a review

Weaning of beef calves is usually done abruptly and early compared to the natural weaning of the species, and is associated with simultaneous exposure of calves to a range of social and environmental stressors. Behavioural and physiological responses to weaning indicate detrimental effects on the welfare of these animals. The development and assessment of weaning methods aiming at reducing or avoiding this problem must be supported by scientific knowledge of the morphological, physiological and psychological mechanisms involved in the establishment, maintenance and braking of the cow-calf bond. Solutions also depend on the understanding of the various stressors associated with weaning, among which are the change in diet, cessation of nursing, separation from the dam, the change to a new spatial environment and the need for social reorganization following removal of the adults from the group. This review discusses these issues and assesses the effectiveness of the methods so far proposed for improving the welfare of beef calves during the weaning period

Targeting FGFR4 Inhibits Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Preclinical Mouse Models

The fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-FGF receptor (FGFR) signaling system plays critical roles in a variety of normal developmental and physiological processes. It is also well documented that dysregulation of FGF-FGFR signaling may have important roles in tumor development and progression. The FGFR4–FGF19 signaling axis has been implicated in the development of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) in mice, and potentially in humans. In this study, we demonstrate that FGFR4 is required for hepatocarcinogenesis; the progeny of FGF19 transgenic mice, which have previously been shown to develop HCCs, bred with FGFR4 knockout mice fail to develop liver tumors. To further test the importance of FGFR4 in HCC, we developed a blocking anti-FGFR4 monoclonal antibody (LD1). LD1 inhibited: 1) FGF1 and FGF19 binding to FGFR4, 2) FGFR4–mediated signaling, colony formation, and proliferation in vitro, and 3) tumor growth in a preclinical model of liver cancer in vivo. Finally, we show that FGFR4 expression is elevated in several types of cancer, including liver cancer, as compared to normal tissues. These findings suggest a modulatory role for FGFR4 in the development and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma and that FGFR4 may be an important and novel therapeutic target in treating this disease

Effects of degree and timing of social housing on reversal learning and response to novel objects in dairy calves

Rodents and primates deprived of early social contact exhibit deficits in learning and behavioural flexibility. They often also exhibit apparent signs of elevated anxiety, although the relationship between these effects has not been studied. To investigate whether dairy calves are similarly affected, we first compared calves housed in standard individual pens (n = 7) to those housed in a dynamic group with access to their mothers (n = 8). All calves learned to approach the correct stimulus in a visual discrimination task. Only one individually housed calf was able to re-learn the task when the stimuli were reversed, compared to all but one calf from the group. A second experiment investigated whether this effect might be explained by anxiety in individually housed animals interfering with their learning, and tested varying degrees of social contact in addition to the complex group: pair housing beginning early (approximately 6 days old) and late (6 weeks old). Again, fewer individually reared calves learned the reversal task (2 of 10 or 20%) compared to early paired and grouped calves (16 of 21 or 76% of calves). Late paired calves had intermediate success. Individually housed calves were slower to touch novel objects, but the magnitude of the fear response did not correlate with reversal performance. We conclude that individually housed calves have learning deficits, but these deficits were not likely associated with increased anxiety

Brazilian Citizens’ Opinions and Attitudes about Farm Animal Production Systems

The inclusion of societal input is needed for food animal production industries to retain their “social license to operate”; failure to engage with the public on this topic risks the long-term sustainability of these industries. The primary aim of this study was to explore the beliefs and attitudes of Brazilians citizens not associated with livestock production towards farm animal production. A related secondary aim was to identify the specific beliefs and attitudes towards systems that are associated with restriction of movement. Each participant was shown pictures representing two of five possible major food animal industries (laying hens, beef cattle, pregnant sows, lactating sows, and poultry meat). Participants were presented a six pages survey that included demographic questions plus two sets of two pictures and a series of questions pertaining to the pictures. Each set of pictures represented a particular industry where one picture represented a housing type that is associated with behavioural restrictions and the other picture represented a system that allowed for a greater degree of movement. Participants were asked their perceptions on the prevalence of each system in Brazil, then their preference of one picture vs. the other, and the reasons justifying their preference. Immediately following, the participant repeated the same exercise with the second set of two pictures representing another industry followed by the same series of questions as described above. Quantitative data were analysed with mixed effects logistic regression, and qualitative responses were coded into themes. The proportion of participants that believed animals are reared in confinement varied by animal production type: 23% (beef cattle), 82% (poultry), 81% (laying hens), and 60% (swine). A large majority (79%) stated that farm animals are not well-treated in Brazil. Overall, participants preferred systems that were not associated with behavioural restriction. The preference for free-range or cage-free systems was justified based on the following reasons: naturalness, animals’ freedom to move, and ethics. A minority of participants indicated a preference for more restrictive systems, citing reasons associated with food security and food safety, increased productivity and hygiene. Our results suggest that the majority of our participants, preferred farm animal production systems that provide greater freedom of movement, which aligned with their perception that these systems are better for the animal. Our results provide some evidence that the current farm animal housing practices that are associated with restriction of movement, which are gaining traction in Brazil, may not align with societal expectations.Land and Food Systems, Faculty ofOther UBCNon UBCReviewedFacult

American Citizens’ Views of an Ideal Pig Farm

Food animal production practices are often cited as having negative animal welfare consequences. The U.S. swine industry has not been exempt from such criticisms. Little is known, however, about how lay citizens who are not actively engaged in agricultural discussions, think about swine production. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the views of people not affiliated with the swine industry on what they perceived to be the ideal pig/pork farm, and their associated reasons. Through an online survey, participants were invited to respond to the following open-ended question: “What do you consider to be an ideal pig/pork farm and why are these characteristics important to you?”. Generally respondents considered animal welfare (e.g., space, freedom to move, and humane treatment), respondents considered the business operation role important for pork production (e.g., profitability, compliance with sanitary, environmental rules and regulations, and workers′ rights), and naturalness (e.g., natural feeding, behaviours and life) important for pork production. Concerns relating to pigs’ quality of life included space to move, feeding, contact with outdoors or nature, absence of pain, suffering and mistreatment. Perspectives were also raised regarding the ideal farm as a profitable business operation, clean, and with optimal sanitary conditions. Respondents also emphasized naturalness, frequently stating that pigs should have access to the outdoors, and rejected the use of hormones, antibiotics, and other chemicals for the purposes of increasing production. In summary, the findings of this study suggest that the U.S. swine industry should strive to adopt animal management practices that resonate with societal values, such as ensuring humane treatment, and the failure to do so could risk the sustainability of the swine industry.Land and Food Systems, Faculty ofOther UBCNon UBCReviewedFacult

Is gene editing an acceptable alternative to castration in pigs?

Male piglets are commonly castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration is the commonly used procedure and is known to induce pain. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to surgical castration. The aims of this study were to explore public acceptability of this biotechnology using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data to assess acceptability of 570 participants from southern Brazil were analysed with multinomial logistic regression models and Spearman correlations; qualitative responses of the reasons provided in support of their position were coded into themes. Just over half of the participants (56%) considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. Acceptability was lower among participants who grew up in an agricultural environment (ρ = 0.02), but was not influenced by sex, age, religion, urban or rural living, or level of education. Acceptability of gene modification of male pigs as an alternative to surgical castration was positively related to the perception of benefits (r = -0.56, ρ<0.0001) and negatively related to the participant's perception of risks (r = -0.35, ρ<0.0001). Acceptability was not related to knowledge of basic concepts of genetic biotechnologies (r = 0.06, ρ<0.14), or to awareness of issues related to pig castration or boar taint (r = 0.03, ρ<0.44), both of which were low among participants. Participants that considered gene modification of pigs acceptable justified their position using arguments that it improved animal welfare. In contrast, those that were not in favour were generally opposed to genetic modification. Unforeseen downstream consequences of using genetic modification in this manner was a major concern raised by over 80% of participants. Our findings suggest that perceived animal welfare may encourage public support of gene editing of food animals. However, potential risks of the technology need to be addressed and conveyed to the public, as many participants requested clarification of such risks as a condition for support