4.1 Article

Facial action units, activity and time spent with dam are effective measures of pain in response to mulesing of Merino lambs

Journal

AUSTRALIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL
Volume 99, Issue 3, Pages 61-65

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/avj.13038

Keywords

animal welfare; behaviour; mulesing; pain; sheep production

Funding

  1. Boehringer Inglheim
  2. Murdoch University
  3. Australian Wool Education Trust scholarship
  4. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare scholarship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study showed that facial action units, activity of the lamb, and time spent with the dam can be used to assess pain in Merino lambs following mulesing, but cannot detect any changes associated with pain relief.
Repeatable measures of pain in ruminants following husbandry procedures are required to validate responses to pain relief. This study tested the hypotheses that facial action units, activity and time spent with dam can be used to assess the efficacy of pain relief in lambs following mulesing. Merino lambs (n = 120) were allocated to one of six treatments implemented at mulesing: (1) lambs that were not mulesed or lambs that were mulesed and administered (2) no pain relief, (3) meloxicam 15 min before mulesing, (4) Tri-Solfen (R), (5) a combination of meloxicam 15 min before mulesing and Tri-Solfen after mulesing and (6) meloxicam at mulesing. Facial action units detected a difference in pain between mulesed and non-mulesed lambs at 1 and 5 h post-mulesing (P = 0.005 and <0.001) but not at 26 h post-mulesing. Lambs that were not mulesed were more active and spent more time with their dams than mulesed lambs (P < 0.001). No differences were observed between lambs that were mulesed with or without pain relief. Therefore, facial action units, activity of the lamb and time spent with dam can detect pain in response to mulesing in Merino lambs but cannot detect any changes associated with pain relief.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available