CALF INDUCTIONS - A VET'S PERSPECTIVE

Welfare concerns

Induction is a process to get late calving cows to calve up to ten weeks earlier than they naturally would. This results in the birth of premature dead or dying calves. Many farmers have stopped inducing because they hated seeing and having to deal with these calves. The only reason it has not become an issue with our overseas market is because most overseas consumers are oblivious to the practice. However we cannot expect this to continue, especially given the ubiquitous nature of the internet. All it needs is someone to put a video of dead and dying premature calves on Youtube and a few key people to view them. Overseas reaction to the practice is that of abhorrence. It is possible to find blogs of foreigners working on New Zealand farms describing inductions in an unfavourable light. Another example that highlights foreign aversion to inductions is that a few years ago an overseas pharmaceutical company discovered that we were using their product for inductions and they promptly refused to supply it.

The process involves an injection of long acting corticosteroid which fools the cows into getting ready to calve; in a normal pregnancy corticosteroids are released by a calf as it is approaching maturity. A second injection two weeks later causes the cow to calve. The practice is associated with animal welfare issues, namely increased disease in the cow and the birth of immature calves that are unlikely to survive. Occasionally there is a justified medical reason for inducing (a good example would be small heifers carrying massive calves), but the majority of time it is used as management tool by farmers to tighten up the calving spread.

History

Induction was first described in literature in 1969; therefore it has been in use in New Zealand for 40 years. Over that time it has become common practice. In the last 10 years there has been increased concern over the welfare aspects of induction and especially the potential it has to tarnish New Zealand's clean green image. This led to calls for a voluntary reduction of inductions by farmers. Whilst there was some reduction of inductions early in this decade it was considered not enough, so in 2004 the label claim for inductions was removed from long acting corticosteroids. The perception at the time was that this would effectively ban inductions, as to use a drug off label it was considered that a vet must justify the use of the drug as being in the best interests of the animal. From an animal welfare point of view this would be a difficult thing to do considering there are welfare issues for both the cow and the calf. But lobbying by various industry groups, who claimed the change was too sudden, led to the 2005 induction code. This code expires October 2010 and there is currently considerable debate over what to do with inductions. Once the code expires there is a need for a vet to justify off label use of the induction drug as been in the best interests of the animal. To establish if routine inductions could be justified, a test case before the vet council would need to take place. A complaint would need to be made about a vet who induces. This would start a legal process that would eventually resolve the issue.

Animal welfare and the 2005 induction code

The 2005 code allows for inductions but tries to address some of the welfare concerns that exist with the practice. By ensuring that only young healthy animals are induced the complications seen in the cows has markedly reduced. However the code's way of dealing with calf welfare is to only induce cows greater than six weeks away from calving. The theory is that the calves should be born dead and thus no need to worry about them. However premature calves can be born alive (and with the right care can survive). Given the two week lag between the first injection and the cow calving, a cow six weeks from giving birth at the start of induction will deliver 4 weeks early; most likely with a live premature calf that will generally require the farmer to put it down. Even when the calves are born dead, at some time during the birthing process that calf has obviously died. Is this humane? We have no way of knowing.

Flouting the rules

Another big issue with the 2005 induction code is that some vets apply the guidelines stringently and other vets only very loosely. This has lead to clients switching vet practices because one firm will induce their cows and another will not. This causes a lot of ill feeling within the profession. Some vets, particularly younger vets, have felt coerced into inducing cows that do not fall into the code.

On the whole vets are not good people to be overseeing compliance to a code. The veterinary profession is a service industry; we make our money by providing a service to farmers. There is a huge conflict between providing a service and enforcing rules. Given the service nature of the job a number of vets are prepared to bend the rules in order to provide a service. There has been no auditing to check that the 2005 code is being complied with and it is now common knowledge that no auditing will be done. Therefore a vet could currently choose to totally ignore the code with no repercussions.

Where to from here?

The debate over what to do with inductions is still very much on the table. There is no doubt an economic benefit to farmers who induce; but is this benefit worth tarnishing New Zealand's clean green farming image?