|
United Suffolk Sheep Association |
|
|
Tail Docks
Marie S. Bulgin DVM
As a commercial lamb producer and a veterinarian, this huge controversy springing up all over the country on tail length was a real puzzlement to me. Why in the world would normal, intelligent livestock breeder get so riled up over an inch or less of tail on a lamb. Then--I went to a local meeting of “Club Lamb” Producers and the District Extension Service. Whew!! I felt like I was lucky to leave alive. The consensus of the show lamb group seemed to be that there was no justification for the association of “short” or no tails to rectal prolapses. The chorus of comments backing up the consensus was 1) They had always docked their tail “short” and had never or seldom seen a prolapse, or 2) Yes, they did have prolapses in their lambs, but the long tailed lambs prolapsed just as often as the no tailed lambs and furthermore, 3) There was no proof that the lack of a tail caused prolapses. Unfortunately, there just was no way to get a word in edgewise. But if I had been given a chance to talk I would have told them what I am going to tell you. One nice thing about writing, you get to have your say! Rectal prolapses have several contributing factors: sex, genetics, straining and finally tail length. Sex affects prolapsing because females lay down more internal fat, particularly in the pelvis. Fat is not a strong tissue, and tears very easily. When a lamb strains or coughs, fat can’t hold the rectal tissue and hind gut in place. Thus, most prolapsing lambs regardless of other factors are females. There is definitely a genetic component to many prolapses. Years ago I made the mistake of breeding a sire to his daughters. All of the resulting females prolapsed, either in the feedlot or when they lambed. I even had a few males prolapse. It didn’t matter if their tails were as long as pump handles. When folks tell me that both their no-tailed lambs and their long tailed lambs prolapse, I wonder, usually silently, about their genetics and make a mental note not to buy breeding stock from them. If a lamb is genetically predisposed to prolapse, the ligaments and internal structure are not strong enough to hold intestines in place in the pelvic area. If straining occurs the lamb will prolapse, particularly if it is a female, but occasional males will prolapse also. I guess straining is the “environmental” factor that the club lamb producers kept bringing up--some factor out of everybodys’ control. Coughing due to dust could maybe fall in that category. But there are all sorts of coughing: summer cough, barn cough, viral cough, whatever it is called in your part of the country. It certainly does contribute to prolapsing. No, I don’t know the cause or a cure, although, I’m certain it is infectious and eventually herd immunities do get built up. However, in genetically predisposed lambs, it guarantees prolapsing; again females affected more often than males. However, I have a hard time calling an infectious problem an environment factor and very often with a little thought it can be dealt with. Coccidia, is another problem contributing to straining that I would label infectious, not environmental. This one can be prevented with coccidostats (Deccox, Bovatec) in the feed or salt. So, now we are back to tail docks! Why would a short tail dock lead to prolapsing? Because the muscle that tightens the anal sphincter inserts on the first four or five coccygeal (tail) vertebra. When they are removed, the muscles have nothing to hold on to or pull against. So, when pressure in the abdomen rises and everything is pushed back, the pelvic contents get the big squeeze. If there is a weakness back there, 1) the connective tissue give way, and 2) there is no strength to the anal sphincter to hold things in, so the pelvic organs (ie distal intestines and rectum, vagina in pregnant females) get pushed out. Can we prove this? That’s the other criticism leveled against the position taken by many of the State and County Livestock Fairs. Well, now that the pedal is against the metal, Extension Educators are very busy collecting the data to do just that. However, it is sort of like proving the sun comes up in the east. When you see it happen every day, why do we have to measure the tails, count the prolapses and publish the data? The owners and managers of every large lamb feedlot in the United States have seen it day in and day out. Ask any of them. You don’t have to publish an article in a scientific journal for them. Harper Feedlot in Colorado won’t buy any 4-H, FFA or Club lambs. Why? Because they have a high incidence of prolapses (as high as10-20 %) in those lambs. They have 1-3% in their other lambs. Big feed lots don’t have the time to find, isolate and treat them. So after 2 or 3 days, the lamb finally prolapses its entire intestinal tract out the rectum, goes into shock and dies. Not a pretty sight although one of those things that PETA would love to publicize. M & M Sheep, a small feedlot in Weiser Idaho, that does buy fair lambs at a significant discount, stop what they are doing, grab those lambs that prolapse, transport them clear to Boise (at least 1 1/2 hours away when traffic is good) and sell them to a small meat packing house for a even bigger discount. They tell me it is worth it because they don’t have to see them die, and the lamb isn’t a total loss, but I wonder if they put pencil to paper whether they wouldn’t be ahead not to buy fair lambs. And--actually there is one published paper by Thomas, et al.* on length of docked tail and incidence of rectal prolapse in lambs. It was a multistate cooperative study done in 2002, involving 1227 lambs within 30 groups composed of anywhere from 5 to 93 lambs. Three lengths of tails were studied: short, removed as closely to the body as possible without surgery; medium, the tail was removed at a location midway between the attachment of the tail and the attachment of the caudal folds, and long. The tail was removed at the attachment of the caudal folds. Short-docked lambs had an all over 7.8 % incidence of rectal prolapse while long tailed lambs had an incidence of 1.8%. The medium group was in the middle, surprise, surprise, with 4.0%. One short tailed group had an incidence of 30% and 3 had a 16-17% incidence. The highest incidence in the long tailed group was 6.7% while many of the groups had none. Hampshire crosses had the most, Dorper crosses had none and of course, most prolapsing lambs were female. The next question that came up was: “why was the Fair Sales Committee selling these perfectly finished lambs to a feedlot?” another emotional issue brought up by the club lamb producers. Didn’t everyone know the lambs were ready for immediate slaughter? There are at least three reasons! 1) the trend now is to slick shear show lambs. (I personally think we should do that for breeding stock and leave some wool on the market lambs.) With no wool, there is no pelt credit. The pelt credit is pretty good right now--$9.00 or so. It is definitely in the economic interest of the fair lamb buyer to keep them until they have a salvageable pelt, approximately 45-50 days. 2) Most fair and show lambs are not fat enough. All the hubabaloo about fat concerns the fat on the slaughtered carcass. Market lambs generally have a long ride on a truck before they reach slaughter. They are taken off feed for 12 hrs before they get on the truck and if they are to be slaughtered within 24 hrs, they get no feed after they get off the truck. Two millimeters of back fat, supposedly the ideal, melts away to nothing during and after transportation. Then, finally 3) One fair usually doesn’t have the 440 lambs it takes to make a truckload and no one wants to pay the diesel bill for a half loaded truck. The issue that really fired every one up was the 7/10th of an inch rule that one of our fairs insisted on this year. How does the producer know how long to dock the tail at birth so it is at least 7/10th of an inch at market time? What if they cut it at exactly the recommended end of the web and it turns out to be 6/10th of an inch when the 4-Her goes to sell? “So what is wrong about leaving the tail a wee bit longer just for insurance?” was my simple minded question? Club lambs are different, was the answer. They are born and bred to be show lambs not feedlot lambs (The italicized words are mine). They are to be long, lean and muscular. They are the best of the best. They will dress out 60%. They are to be clean, neat, trim with no unsightly bump on their nicely rounded rumps. In other words, the reason for no tail is totally aesthetic. The fact that no tails or extremely short tails increases the risk of pain and suffering by a substantial number of the animals is of no interest to these niche breeders and to justify their stance, they refuse to believe the reports of long time feedlot owners and managers or even, it seems of Extension Service researchers. Unfortunately, they are not an island unto themselves. They impact our industry because they have to enter the regular market channels. Docking tails was a practice begun to keep lambs manure and maggot free but taken too far, causes a serious health problem. At this point, I believe all of the industry needs to quit looking the other way while the war wages. But the part of the industry best able to aggressively address this problem is the purebred industry. It started in the show ring and it has to end in the show ring. If our judges are not good enough to be able to see beyond an inch of tail to a good muscled hindquarter, how can they tell an excellent sheep from a mediocre one? Judges need to be judging on the merits of an animal, not its tail length! Show ring and sale promoters need to get involved and insist on some sort of tail on a show sheep. Be good examples to the club lamb industry. Remember sheep breeders, the life of the lamb does not usually end when it leaves our hands and it would be nice to ensure that it lives out its life as comfortable as possible. * Journal of Animal Science 2003, 81:2725-2732
|