Finding a Humane Approach to Physical Alterations in Livestock, Plus the Inside Workings of a Working Group

Originally published in the Organic Federation of Canada’s Info-Bio newsletter

By Janet Wallace

While revising the Canadian Organic Standards, the Livestock Working Group aims to ensure that organic livestock have the most humane living conditions possible. At times, using unpleasant practices, such as castration and tail docking, might be required to ensure animal welfare.

According to Clause 6.6.4 in the standards, “Physical alterations are prohibited, unless they are essential for animal health, welfare or hygiene, for identification or for safety reasons.” It continues to specify restrictions on various practices while also requiring that “Physical alterations shall be carried out in a manner that minimizes pain, stress and suffering.”

 

While starting to address a couple petitions to restrict specific physical alterations, the Livestock Working Group realized this section of the 2020 Standards was a bit confusing and decided to review the whole issue – all physical alterations for all types of livestock. Specifically, the Livestock Working Group wanted to identify:

• Which physical alterations are essential for animal welfare and what ones can be restricted or prohibited?
• What is the least painful way to effectively perform each alteration (this could involve, for example, using certain tools to minimize suffering)?
• For each species, what is the ideal age to perform this practice effectively while minimizing suffering?
• What forms of pain control should be required (e.g., anaesthetics, sedatives or analgesics)?

 

Tristan Banwell describes the proposed changes to the physical alterations clause and uses this clause as an example to show how working groups develop their recommendations. Tristan is a member of the Livestock Working Group as well as a member of the Swine, Poultry and Ruminant Task Forces. Tristan and his wife Aubyn Banwell raise poultry, pigs, sheep and cattle in a pasture-based agroecological system on Spray Creek Ranch, a 500-acre organic farm outside Lillooet, BC.

 

The Inside Workings of a Working Group

Tristan describes the steps involved in reviewing the clause. The first step was reviewing the background research on the topic including a comparison of organic standards from around the world.

“Then we start to talk about proposed changes to the standard and all of the expertise in the group starts to come into play,” Tristan explains. Farmers talked about how proposed changes might affect their production and organic inspectors talked about what they’ve seen in their inspections.

Working Group members discussed “how these issues may vary from province to province and within different bioregions of our country,” and vary depending on different scales of production. For example, a farmer raising five hundred chickens in chicken tractors faces different issues than someone with tens of thousands of birds in total and 8000 birds in each barn.

The Organic Federation of Canada, which manages the review process, then developed a survey, which was distributed among all organic provincial and regional organizations, as well as other farming groups. The survey was divided into sections for various types of livestock but contained approximately 130 questions in total.

 

From the surveys, Tristain explains, the Working Group gained insight into “what types of physical alterations are people currently doing to their livestock across the country, which of these are important, and where would we have an impact if we further restricted some of these procedures.”

During zoom meetings and in between meetings, the Working Group and Task Force members submitted their opinions, more than 170 WG comments in total, before deciding to “review the entire physical alteration section of the standard to make sure that we were:

• up to date with the latest research,
• consistent with Codes of Practice
• had information from veterinarians.”

 

Pain control

As much as farmers try to avoid hurting their animals, painful procedures are sometimes required to avoid future suffering. Castrating young male animals, for example, can prevent female animals from being harassed or being impregnated when they are not yet full grown. Docking sheep tails, for example, reduces the incidence of fly strike, a horrific condition in which the flesh of a living sheep is consumed by maggots teeming under the skin.

Although painful procedures may be necessary, suffering can be minimized or even avoided altogether. The Livestock Working Group recommends a requirement that “Except for poultry, regardless of age or method, anesthetics and non-steroid anti-inflammatory analgesics shall be used in consultation with a veterinarian to provide sufficient pain control; sedatives should be considered to further minimize stress” (6.6.4.a).

 

Types of procedures

Tristan Banwell explains that they wanted to restrict unnecessary painful procedures. The group recommends a complete prohibition (even under veterinary supervision) on caustic paste disbudding, castration of cull boars, spaying of female beef cattle, and preventative tail docking of cattle.

For other practices, the draft of the standards contains restrictions. These might state that a procedure can only be done in certain conditions, such as when it is required by law or in response to an outbreak of behavioural problems. The restrictions also specify how the procedures should be performed (including the age limits of the animals, type of pain control and type of implement). See the entire clause at the end of this article.

“We still allow enough flexibility for producers to make the management decisions that they need to do in order to sustain their type of production,” Tristan says.

 

Beak treatment

Beak trimming and beak treatment in general were discussed at length. The 2020 Canadian Organic Standard “didn’t distinguish between different types of modifications that are made to beaks for laying hens to prevent the birds from aggressively pecking at one another,” says Tristan. Almost all day-old chicks sold for laying production have had the tip of their beak cauterized with an infrared beam.

Members of the Poultry Task Force and the Livestock Working Group “talked about whether we can just eliminate this practice entirely,” Tristan explains. “Why has this become so ubiquitous? It’s because the birds that we have here in North America are raised in large flocks for a lot of organic production. They’re in large flocks in barns and some of the year, they’re prevented from outdoor access because of weather conditions and other reasons. So, these birds are prone to outbreaks of pecking one another.” Beak treatments reduce the chance of injury.

Apparently, this aggressive behaviour isn’t found in all breeds. European poultry farmers use birds that are less aggressive but currently these breeds “are not commercially available in North America at the scale that we need for this type of production,” says Tristan. The proposed text contains a caveat which states “the physical alterations permitted for poultry will be reviewed in 2030.” If the less aggressive breeds become more available in Canada, perhaps the 2030 Standards will contain more restrictions on beak treatment.

The Livestock Working Group is recommending the following text for 6.6.4.g. 11) Poultry:

1. Infrared beak treatment is permitted for one day old laying hens.
2. Infrared beak treatment and spur removal is permitted for one day old turkeys.
3. Beak trimming is allowed by exception for laying hens and turkeys until ten days old in situations when infrared beak treatment failed or in flocks where infrared beak treatment is not available.
4. In case of cannibalism outbreak, beak trimming is allowed after ten days of age under veterinary supervision. Beak trimming shall be done in a way that no more than one-third of the upper beak is removed, as measured from the tip to the entrance of the nostrils. If beak trimming is used, it shall be documented.

 

Finding a balance

The issue of physical alterations in livestock is a good example of how the Working Groups involved in reviewing the Canadian Organic Standards strive to find the right balance between idealistic goals and the reality of farming. With livestock, the goal is to treat animals humanely. However, at times, performing painful procedures might be the most humane option for the whole herd or flock in the long-term. Just as parents will take their children to the dentist even though having a cavity filled is uncomfortable or even painful, livestock farmers sometimes need to perform such unpleasant tasks. In organic production, the goal is to ensure such procedures are done only when necessary, only by competent individuals and only with adequate levels of pain control (when applicable).

 

The final version of the physical modification clause to be submitted for public consultation in spring 2025

6.6.4. For all livestock, physical alterations are prohibited unless they are essential for animal health, welfare or hygiene, for identification or for safety reasons, and are listed below in 6.6.4.g. Operators must take steps to avoid physical alterations and should work towards phasing out routine alterations, other than for identification as required by law. All physical alterations are subject to the following:

a. Except for poultry, regardless of age or method, anesthetics and non-steroid anti-inflammatory analgesics shall be used in consultation with a veterinarian to provide sufficient pain control; sedatives should be considered to further minimize stress.

b. Physical alterations should be done at as young an age as possible. Other than for poultry, they shall be done after the first 24 hours of life.

c. Physical alterations must be performed by, or under the direct supervision of, competent personnel using proper, clean, sanitized, and well-maintained tools, and accepted techniques.

d. Tagging for identification as required by law is permitted. One additional ear tag, or tail web tag (for goats) is permitted.

e. Physical alterations permitted by livestock type are listed in 6.6.4.7. Physical alterations not listed are permitted by exception if they are required to protect the health or welfare of the animal, if they are done by a licensed veterinarian, and should be on an individual basis rather than for a group of animals. Exceptional events that require physical alterations shall be documented and corrective action shall be taken to avoid recurrence.

f. The following physical alterations are prohibited even under veterinary supervision: caustic paste disbudding, castration of cull boars, spaying of female beef cattle, and preventative tail docking of cattle.

g. Specifications by species:

1) Poultry:

1. Infrared beak treatment is permitted for one day old laying hens.
2. Infrared beak treatment and spur removal is permitted for one day old turkeys.
3. Beak trimming is allowed by exception for laying hens and turkeys until ten days old in situations when infrared beak treatment failed or in flocks where infrared beak treatment is not available.
4. In case of cannibalism outbreak, beak trimming is allowed after ten days of age under veterinary supervision. Beak trimming shall be done in a way that no more than one-third of the upper beak is removed, as measured from the tip to the entrance of the nostrils. If beak trimming is used, it shall be documented.
5. The physical alterations permitted for poultry will be reviewed in 2030.

2) Pigs:

1. Castration is permitted for piglets under ten days of age.
2. Tail docking is permitted only if a documented outbreak of cannibalism occurs and the issue cannot be addressed with other methods. Tail docking shall be to a minimum length of 2.5 cm and the operator shall obtain written instructions from a veterinarian indicating the method to be used.

3) Cattle:

1. Disbudding by hot iron is permitted under two months of age.
2. Clamp castration and rubber ring castration are permitted under two months of age.
3. Tail docking of cattle is permitted only when necessary for treatment of injured animals.
4. Branding is prohibited unless required by law. If required by law, freeze branding with pain control shall be used, and the operator shall provide documentation showing that it is required by law.

4) Sheep:

1. Castration is permitted by clamp for lambs under two months of age and by rubber ring for lambs under seven days of age.
2. Tail docking is permitted for lambs under seven days of age, with the following methods in order of preference (the least painful technique is listed first): hot iron, rubber band and clamp, or rubber band. Docked tails must cover the vulva in ewes and the equivalent length in rams. Tails must be docked no shorter than the distal end of the caudal fold.

5) Goats:

1. Disbudding by hot iron is permitted for kids under 21 days of age.
2. Clamp castration is permitted for kids under two months of age and rubber ring castration is permitted for kids under 14 days of age.

Note: The National Farm Animal Care Council Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Sheep and The National Farm Animal Care Council Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Beef are under revision at the time of publishing the 2025 Canadian Organic Standard. Operators are expected to keep up to date with current Codes of Practice, as this standard is expected to meet or exceed the current published Codes of Practice at their time of implementation.

Definitions, 3.9:
Beak Trimming: Removal of a portion of the beak, usually by hot blade, an instrument that simultaneously cuts and cauterizes.

Beak Treatment: Blunting of the beak using a non-invasive procedure (i.e. infra-red).

Disbudding: a procedure that removes the horn bud (from which the horn grows) before it attaches to the skull, which usually occurs at 2 months in cattle and at 21 days of age in goats. When horns are removed after the horn bud attaches to the skull, it is called dehorning.

 

For more updates on the 2025 Review of the Canadian Organic Standards, visit the Organic Federation of Canada’s website and be sure to subscribe to their Info-bio newsletter.