Should I just knock softly or kick the door in? — Bringing up delicate topics with clients

Although some subjects are difficult to bring up, veterinarians will observe situations during farm visits that should be addressed. One particularly sensitive topic is on-farm infrastructure and management practices that relate to animal welfare. National commodity organizations have adopted animal welfare standards based on the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) Codes of Practice (1). These standards cover many, but not all, welfare management situations that can occur on Canadian farms. The major commodity groups monitor farmers for compliance in the adoption of management practices classified as required in the Codes. Most farmers, but not all, are compliant with the Codes (2).

This creates situations in which veterinarians observe either suboptimal management practices or non-compliance with Code requirements. That can force veterinarians into circumstances where they feel obliged to bring up difficult topics. In this column, 3 veterinarians share some of their experiences in raising difficult subjects with farmers. Dr. Frederic Tremblay and Dre. Isabelle Maheu discuss how they address pain management for disbudding/dehorning on dairy farms. Dr. Neil Anderson reveals his experiences in raising diverse difficult topics with dairy farmers over his years in food animal practice. It is noteworthy that Dr. Anderson was the first recipient and Dre. Maheu is the most recent recipient of the Metacam^® Bovine Welfare Award.

DRE. ISABELLE MAHEU, BUREAU VÉTÉRINAIRE DE RICHMOND, RICHMOND, QUÉBEC

Animal welfare issues have evolved substantially since I started to practice 21 years ago. I remember that in 2004, I was very concerned that many farms did not use local anesthesia when disbudding calves. To convince producers to adopt local anesthesia, I demonstrated the technique to them, sometimes even on my personal time, so that the cost of learning would not become an obstacle to change. Despite my efforts, many producers still considered local anesthesia to be optional.

In 2009, the Code of Practice for the Care and Management of Dairy Cattle was revised. That revision made local anesthesia a requirement for disbudding of calves. Pain management around disbudding also became part of the requirements during validations for proAction (3). From that point on, I no longer needed to convince producers to use local anesthesia because they were required to use it. Nevertheless, it made me realize that trying to stay one step ahead of animal-welfare regulations allows us to play a key, trusted role for producers.

By 2025, opportunities to discuss animal welfare were everywhere. NFACC revised the Code of Practice in 2023 to support advocates for better welfare and better pain management. In Quebec, the ministry of agriculture, MAPAQ, provides support to address animal-welfare topics. In addition, numerous studies have demonstrated the value of the tools we recommend for controlling pain. Producers are more informed and more receptive regarding comfort, well-being, and pain management for their animals. They are aware that the performance of their herd, as well as consumer perception of their industry, are closely tied to how they treat their animals.

The range of animal welfare topics is very broad. Herdhealth visits are ideal for discussing housing, hoof health, calf management, and treatment strategies for disease. Because we frequently visit farms, the herd veterinarian can easily identify where the client should prioritize their efforts and discuss that with them during preventive-care visits. Moreover, veterinarians can use herd management software to track improvements in performance after farmers make changes to improve animal welfare. Clients appreciate being able to evaluate and quantify the impacts of improvements made on the farm; these discussions can even motivate further change.

Farm visits to address specific health situations allow us to focus on specific welfare situations such as the management of non-ambulatory cows or making decisions related to euthanasia. To facilitate adoption of best practices for these types of situations, veterinarians can offer a rental service for cow-skidder equipment and cow-lifters, along with support on how they should be used. This is a way to make these tools accessible to everyone and is an opportunity to discuss appropriate handling of non-ambulatory cows.

Along the same lines, using a captive-bolt gun for euthanasia can be intimidating for farmers who have not received sufficient training, especially if they do not feel confident that they are using it properly. Knowing that their veterinarian can review proper technique and or even be present the first few times may help with the adoption and proper application of this euthanasia method. The advantage of this is a reduction in the interval between the decision to end the animal’s life and euthanasia, because the client can perform the euthanasia independently without the need for a veterinary visit.

In summary, veterinarians must be proactive in animal welfare by educating our clients through our own actions and by ensuring that pain management is not an optional service but is really an integral part of the treatment plan. In my opinion, this is the philosophy we should promote to producers.

DR. FRÉDÉRIC TREMBLAY, BUREAU VÉTÉRINAIRE STE-MARIE, STE-MARIE DE BEAUCE, QUÉBEC

Animal welfare is just common sense for everyone. If that is true, why, then, do many producers seem so unreceptive when the subject is mentioned? Maybe they feel judged? They have the impression that city dwellers, who know nothing about their reality, will dictate how they should treat their animals. For them, animal welfare is a big machine that comes from the city.

Yet, almost no one has refused to implement pain mitigation procedures when I’ve proposed them. The key is understanding more about pain. Cattle don’t show many signs when they feel pain, and humans don’t easily understand their needs in this regard. Once clearly explained, animal owners not only agree with the concept, they also rigorously apply it. In my opinion, the same situation can be observed with other major current animal welfare issues, such as early calf separation, freedom of movement, mobility, and others. As long as these issues seem that they are imposed on them by an external force, there is likely to be resistance.

Our role as veterinarians is to have the courage to help clients understand that these realities are not just consumer whims. When a producer fully understands the situation, they are more likely to actively invest in the welfare of their animals. Not to meet a standard; not to improve the image of their product; not to ensure the sustainability of their markets, rather because it’s the most logical thing to do; it’s the right thing to do.

Because animal welfare is common sense for everyone.

DR. NEIL ANDERSON, CHELTENHAM, ONTARIO

“I’m OK with being on the cutting edge, I just don’t want to bleed too badly,” showed a farmer’s apprehension when we talked about disease prevention, and its surrogate, animal welfare. My talks usually focused on the needs of the cow and the farmer. Educational, challenging, rewarding, and haunting defined some of my outcomes.

Disheartened by sick cows and full of youthful silliness, I offered to buy my client a ration mixer and asked for a tractor and a chain to remove his milking-parlor equipment. My surprised client bought the mixer and reported my threatened extraction to the equipment dealer. The manufacturer intimidated me with lawsuits and replaced the milking equipment. Tangible actions speak to one’s commitment.

Answers to “how’s that working,” “tell me,” and “show me” went both ways in a conversation. To test a suggestion, a farmer modified some tie-stalls and saw his dumb heifers and weak box-stall cows lying down and rising with ease in them. Fully 8 weeks later, he hosted an open house in his renovated stable. His speechless cows did the talking and he started an epidemic of change amongst his peers, equipment manufacturers, and barn builders. Look, listen, and ask for interpretation.

Frequently, farmers told me “that didn’t work” or “it won’t work on my farm.” To carry on with the conversation, I often said, “I used to believe that too, but I don’t anymore.” A reply of “why not?” let me explain why my perspectives changed because of successes by other farmers. This farmer-to-farmer information was commonly understood and stimulated reconsideration of ideas.

Digital photographs and time-lapse video clips were a real game-changer. They gave voices to animals, opened our eyes to unwanted, coping and normal behaviors, and fostered discussions about “what are the cattle telling us” Photos in written reports provided stickiness to memories and confirmation of the observed and the recommended.

“What do you plan to do and when?” was my call for action. I recall a farmer saying “nothing” and me asking, “OK then, have you considered switching to chickens?” Two years later, he had switched. At another farm, I said that doing nothing wasn’t an option. They had to choose between fixing the stabling or selling the cows and my choices would be helping them or calling authorities to remove the cows. They installed new stabling within the month. Changes take time, planning, and money. Nudges vary in intensity.

When asked “what’s the diagnosis?” for her calves, I said “starvation.” She was worn out from nursing sick calves and that incendiary word made her explode. I found safety behind the bulk-milk-tank. Fortunately, I could point to her light-weight twin-born female calves that were thriving on her milk allowance and to her single-born female and male calves that lost weight and become sick. She increased milk allowances and reported great success. I praised her efforts and learned about tactfulness. In a C/E meeting, I recommended rewording labels on milk replacers from “feeding guidelines” (that hardly allowed for maintenance) to “how to starve calves.” Members of the feed association noticed, invited me to defend my position, and today, their labels speak for enhanced feeding. Provocative words may cause harm, create awareness, or get action.

A farmer’s delay of euthanasia is a burden on the farmer and the animal’s welfare. When I saw it, I talked about the need for immediate action and our shared duty of care — the farmer’s and mine. A follow-up visit the next day was a way of checking on the owner’s well-being and compliance.

Farmers taught me that “what doesn’t work,” although harmful during the discovery, could be a success when shared with others. My haunting memories of failures are chased away by a farmer’s words when he shared the outcomes of changes for cow comfort in his barn. He stood before his peers and said, “The cows are happy, the wife is happy, the farmer is happy and the banker is happy” and sat down.

POSTSCRIPT

Raising the topic that there is a need for change is only the first step in the process of actually implementing change. Accomplishing change is another matter entirely. Food animal veterinarians are often well poised to do that. They often have long-term relationships with their clients and visit their client’s farms regularly. These visits can offer opportunities to reinforce the message, to present messages in different ways, and even to monitor and fine-tune implementation. Each of the veterinarians who contributed to this column offers examples of what they did to assure the actual implementation of change. They also each state that assuring change isn’t as simple as pointing out the need for change.