48. Effects of Pain Control Methods, Including a Lidocaine-impregnated Elastrator Band, on Growth Performance and Wound Healing in Lambs.

Clicks: 12
ID: 330496
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #624 of 847 articles by views in italian journal of animal science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 847 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of tail docking pain control on wound healing and growth performance in lambs. We hypothesized that increasing pain control across treatments would improve these outcomes. Seventy-one lambs (40 male, 31 female; Rideau-Arcott x Dorset) were enrolled at birth at the University of Guelph's Ridgetown Sheep Research Centre. Lambs were randomly assigned to one of four treatments, balanced for birth weight, sex and litter size: 1) no pain control (n = 19), 2) local anesthetic (SQ lidocaine at docking site) and analgesia (meloxicam) (n = 18), 3) local anesthetic only (n = 17), or 4) a lidocaine-impregnated elastrator band (LidobandTM; n = 17). Tail docking was performed at 24-48 hours of age using a rubber elastrator ring (groups 1, 2, 3) or LidobandTM (group 4). Wound healing included wound and swelling scores (1-4 severity scale; 4 = most severe), time to tail detachment, and time for complete wound healing, each assessed weekly. Lambs were weighed weekly to determine average daily gains (ADG). Tail diameter (mm) and wool depth (mm) were measured before docking. Data was analysed in SAS Studio using logistic regression and generalized linear mixed models with lamb as the experimental unit and week as a repeated measure for ADG and weight models. ADG tended to differ between treatments (P = 0.09), with lambs that did not receive pain control having lower growth rates than lambs receiving anesthetic and/or analgesia; means (± SE) of 0.30±0.02, 0.35±0.02, 0.34±0.02, and 0.35±0.02 kg/day for treatments 1-4, respectively. Body weight differed between treatments (P = 0.04) with a treatment by time interaction (P < 0.01). Lambs began at similar weights but differed by 14 weeks, with mean weights (± SE) of 35.1±1.05, 37.6±1.05, 39.0±1.09, and 39.4±1.06 kg for treatments 1-4, respectively. Maximum swelling score tended to be associated with wool depth at the docking site, where increasing wool depth increased the odds of a maximum swelling score of > 3 (OR = 1.13; P = 0.07); but showed no association with treatment, sex, or tail diameter. Maximum wound score of > 2 was not associated with treatment, sex, tail diameter, or wool depth. Time to tail detachment and healing was 2.50 (range: 2-4) and 5.44 (4-8) weeks, respectively. Healing time was associated with tail diameter at enrollment, increasing by 0.17 weeks for each 1 mm increase in diameter (P = 0.01). Neither time to detachment nor healing was associated with treatment, sex, wound or swelling scores. These results suggest that pain control during tail docking may improve lamb growth performance, however wound healing and swelling outcomes did not appear to be affected by treatment.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214764694 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Thoreau Colucci, Augusto Madureira, Derek B. Haley, Ben Lecorps, Paul Luimes, Charlotte Winder, Tracy Burnett
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal italian journal of animal science
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jas/skag272.096
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skag272.096
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.