welfare of farmed deer in new zealand. 2. velvet antler removal

8
This article was downloaded by: [University of Pennsylvania] On: 27 September 2013, At: 05:58 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK New Zealand Veterinary Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzv20 Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal PR Wilson a & KJ Stafford a a Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand E-mail: Published online: 22 Feb 2011. To cite this article: PR Wilson & KJ Stafford (2002) Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal, New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 50:6, 221-227 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2002.36317 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Upload: kj

Post on 14-Dec-2016

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal

This article was downloaded by: [University of Pennsylvania]On: 27 September 2013, At: 05:58Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

New Zealand Veterinary JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzv20

Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvetantler removalPR Wilson a & KJ Stafford aa Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, PalmerstonNorth, New Zealand E-mail:Published online: 22 Feb 2011.

To cite this article: PR Wilson & KJ Stafford (2002) Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal, NewZealand Veterinary Journal, 50:6, 221-227

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2002.36317

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal

Feature Review Series - Health and welfare of farmed deer

Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal

PR Wilson*§ and KJ Stafford*

* Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

§ Author for correspondence. Email: [email protected]

AbstractThis paper reviews published data on welfare aspects of stag restraint and velvet antler removal, and prevention of antler growth. Several studies of physical restraint and handling dem-onstrate behavioural and physiological changes both during and after velvet antler removal. Interpretations vary as to whether the act of velvet antler removal imposes a welfare cost addition-al to that of handling and restraint alone. Chemical restraint presents immediate and delayed welfare risks to the animal.

Surgical removal of velvet antler can be achieved without acute pain using a high dose rate of local anaesthetic applied as a ring block, rather than as regional nerve blocks, provided the wait time is adequate. However, there is evidence of less than opti-mum reproducibility. Lignocaine hydrochloride produces rapid analgesia of short duration, whilst bupivacaine has a delayed onset, but longer duration of analgesia. Mepivacaine has a rapid onset and intermediate duration of analgesia. Mixtures of long- and short-acting local anaesthetics provide rapid onset and long duration of analgesia.

Present methods for electronic analgesia are aversive and not suffi ciently effective. The effi cacy and possible aversiveness of compression techniques for inducing analgesia of antlers are currently under evaluation. Post-operative pain and the need for its control have been insuffi ciently researched. Post-operative sequelae are uncommon, but include clostridial infection. Ant-ler growth in most stags can be prevented by rubber-band ap-plication to the growing pedicle, although behavioural changes after ring application suggest this practice may be painful.

The procedures used for velvet antler removal, and whether practices are acceptable on the balance of welfare costs and ben-efi ts, should be reviewed on an ongoing basis as science, using an increasing range of techniques and measures, provides more data about the welfare implications of this practice.

KEY WORDS: Deer, welfare, restraint, antlers, velvet antler, antler removal, antler prevention, analgesia

IntroductionVelvet antler removal has been an accepted deer farming prac-tice in China for centuries (Zhang 1982). In the western world, including New Zealand, pastoral deer farming began only 30 years ago, originally for venison production. Lucrative returns for velvet antler soon became a driver of industry growth (Wallis 1993). Procedures for antler removal were fi rst described in the

veterinary literature by English (1979) and Wilson (1979), and more detailed descriptions have been published by English (1984) and Haigh et al (2001). Compliance standards for removal of antler from stags in New Zealand are described in the deer in-dustry “Velvet Removal Programme” (Campbell 1993). Similar programmes operate in Australia (Wilson et al 2001) and some provinces of Canada (Church and Church 2001).

Welfare is a signifi cant priority for the deer industry and velvet antler removal is one of its most sensitive issues (Loza 2001). This paper reviews literature on welfare aspects of stag restraint and velvet antler removal, and prevention of antler growth, and iden-tifi es directions for further research in the quest to assure that the welfare of stags is safeguarded during these procedures.

Velvet antler removalVelvet antler removal is the surgical amputation of a living, vascu-lar and innervated tissue (Wilson et al 2001), usually performed on young stags prior to slaughter, or older stags farmed specifi -cally for this purpose or as breeding sires. It is performed on many species of deer in New Zealand and elsewhere, and is without precedent in terms of animal utilisation in western agriculture (Wilson et al 2001). Techniques for antler removal, with particu-lar reference to analgesia and the ongoing search for improved methods, have been reviewed by Haigh et al (2001). The New Zealand Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Deer During the Removal of Antlers (Anonymous 1992) requires restraint of the deer and stipulates a requirement for either general or local anaesthesia. More recently, a rubber ring technique (Mat-thews et al 1999a; Matthews and Suttie 2001) has been approved on a provisional (annually renewable) basis by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) as a method of analgesia for velvet removal from 1-year-old stags.

The legal and ethical defensibility of velvet antler removal

Velvet antler removal is permitted in New Zealand under specifi c provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (Anonymous 1999) and is classifi ed as a controlled surgical procedure. The AWAC

AWAC Animal Welfare Advisory CommitteeB Bupivacainebpm Beats per minuteECG ElectrocardiographL LignocaineM MepivacaineNAWAC National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee

New Zealand Veterinary Journal 50(6), 221-227, 2002 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

5:58

27

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 3: Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal

Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Deer During the Removal of Antlers (Anonymous 1992) permits velvet removal by either veterinarians or trained and approved lay people, under a national programme (Campbell 1993; Wilson et al 2001).

The legal status of velvet antler removal internationally was re-viewed by Wilson et al (2001). The procedure is prohibited in some countries, including the United Kingdom and Ireland. In some, it is not practised because general animal welfare legislation is interpreted as forbidding it, while in others there is no general or specifi c animal welfare legislation preventing the practice.

Judgment on the ethical justifi cation for velvet antler removal is personal, based on balancing real or perceived advantages and disadvantages to both animal and human populations (Wilson et al 2001). However, the law in each country determines the acceptability of the procedure, and therefore should represent the consensus view of society based on the nett welfare impact. Key components of the welfare cost:benefi t analysis, reviewed by Wilson et al (2001), include national culture, ethnic and religious beliefs, farming culture, the relative value of the antler to the stag versus the medicinal and fi nancial value to the human popula-tion, precedents, animal and human safety, and the well-being of the animal during and after the removal process.

In animal welfare terms, the practice must satisfy the fi fth do-main of potential animal welfare compromise, defi ned by Mellor and Stafford (2001) as “minimising the conditions that produce unacceptable levels of anxiety, fear, distress…pain…”. Matthews (1992), in reviewing early literature on the effects of velvet re-moval on the animal, concluded: “…. on balance the benefi ts of velvet antler removal to the animal…. and humans seem to outweigh any short-term welfare costs, i.e. stress to the animal”. Velvet antler removal is permitted in New Zealand based on that premise, and requirements to safeguard the stag’s welfare have been specifi cally included in the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

RestraintRestraint is necessary for administration of analgesia for velvet antler removal, and for many other routine farming practices such as ear tagging, animal health treatments, clinical and physical examination, tuberculosis testing and ultrasound scanning for pregnancy.

Physical restraintPhysical restraint of deer, reviewed by Matthews (2000), involves close contact with humans and is achieved either manually, or mechanically, usually using pneumatic or hydraulic devices (Haigh et al 2001). Many studies of behavioural and physiologi-cal responses to restraint have been undertaken. When given the choice of walking through a restraint device or being restrained in the device, stags rapidly chose to avoid the latter option (Pollard et al 1994). Carragher et al (1997) observed greater changes in physiological and behavioural measures after restraint in a drop-fl oor device than after yarding or drafting only. Stags that were yarded and handled exhibited signifi cantly more walking activity shortly after handling, at the expense of grazing and lying, than undisturbed controls (Matthews et al 1990). Diverio et al (1993) reported a 39–51% reduction in the frequency of inactive lying after stags had been handled. When different handling experi-ences were compared, deer were slowest to re-enter a raceway

down which they had previously experienced restraint (Grigor et al 1998). Heart rates during physical restraint were lower under dark than light conditions (Pollard and Littlejohn 1995). Mat-thews et al (1994) reported mean blood cortisol concentrations of 50–70 ng/ml during restraint, compared with concentrations in undisturbed deer at pasture of 11 ng/ml on Day 1 and 22 ng/ml on Day 2 of their study, although statistical analysis of these data was not described.

Thus, behavioural and physiological evidence suggests that handling is stressful to deer. However, there are no reports of, or reference to, acute fi ght/fl ight responses to normal handling procedures involved with velvet antler removal. Behavioural and physiological studies on the effects of handling and restraint have largely been conducted on research herds that generally contain deer amenable to the research environment. Few, if any, compa-rable observations have been reported from commercial farms. Thus, formal study of restraint is needed to establish and quan-tify the range of behaviours and physiological responses to velvet antler removal on commercial farms, and if necessary, to identify means of reducing stress associated with restraint for this and other husbandry procedures.

Electrical restraintHead-to-tail electro-immobilisation of red (Cervus elaphus) and red x wapiti (Cervus elaphus canadensis) hybrid deer produced open-mouthed breathing and vocalisation, suggesting the pro-cedure was stressful and painful (Stafford and Mesken 1992), although other measures of stress would be needed to confi rm that conclusion. In its present form, electro-immobilisation is considered inappropriate for restraint of deer in New Zealand.

Chemical restraintA detailed review of drugs used for immobilisation of deer is presented elsewhere in this issue (Walsh and Wilson 2002a). The acute risks inherent with sedatives/anaesthetics in other animals apply to their use in deer during antler removal. Xylazine alone or in combination with azaperone and fentanyl citrate are the commonly used chemical immobilising agents for deer in New Zealand. Neither provided suffi cient analgesia for velvet antler removal at dose rates of 0.4–0.6 mg/kg liveweight (Wilson et al 1996ab).

Stress and antler removalStress associated with yarding, handling and restraint, and/or pain associated with antler removal can be evaluated using be-havioural and physiological measurements (Weilburg 1996). In-terpretation and comparisons of behavioural studies are diffi cult because measurement variables are also infl uenced by change of environment and/or social grouping. There appears to be some contradiction between studies and conclusions based on various measures of stress. Some physiological measures may be maximal as a result of handling and restraint, and therefore may not show further changes in response to velvet removal per se. It is, there-fore, important that studies of stress associated with surgical or management practices, such as velvet antler removal, are evalu-ated using a range of measurements (Wilson et al 2002ab). Mat-thews et al (1990) reported no difference in behavioural responses between stags that had had their velvet antler removed and those that had not. Conversely, Pollard et al (1991, 1992a) and Mat-thews and Cook (1991) described increased struggling during

222 New Zealand Veterinary Journal 50(6), 2002 Wilson and Stafford

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

5:58

27

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 4: Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal

velvet removal, sometimes associated with apparently suboptimal analgesia. Those authors reported greater behavioural responses to ear tagging than to velvet antler removal without analgesia. However, the number of animals used in that study was small and data were not subjected to statistical analysis. Cortisol con-centrations in stags velveted under local anaesthesia were similar to those in stags velveted without analgesia, or those ear tagged only (Matthews and Cook 1991). Those authors proposed that stressors other than velvet antler removal caused the hormonal responses measured, inferring that velvet antler removal did not cause additional stress. However, this inference differed from that drawn from behavioural responses in the same study, suggesting that measurement of cortisol concentration alone may not be ap-propriate for evaluation of stress because it may be infl uenced by cumulative procedures such as handling, restraint and then velvet antler removal. An alternative proposition, that cortisol concen-trations may have been maximal before velvet antler removal, was not discussed. Evidence for “ceiling effects” on maximal cortisol responses has been obtained in studies of husbandry stress in sheep (Molony and Kent 1997; Molony et al 2002).

Heart rate has been a commonly used measurement in studies of stress and pain during velvet antler removal. Increased heart rates were observed the day following velvet antler removal in stags re-exposed to the site of antler removal, suggesting that the proce-dure was aversive (Pollard et al 1992a). Other data are addressed below in the section of this review on surgical pain.

After restraint and velvet antler removal, Matthews et al (1990) observed increased walking, standing and lying for several hours at the expense of grazing in velveted stags compared with con-trol stags that had remained in the paddock, but no differences between stags that had been velveted compared with those that had been restrained only. Those authors concluded that further research was necessary to distinguish the effects of velvet removal procedures from those of handling and restraint. Similar fi nd-ings were subsequently reported by Matthews and Cook (1991). Preliminary results from Matthews et al (1994) also reported dif-ferences in behaviour between control stags and stags that had had their velvet antler removed. Pollard et al (1992a) also noted differences in the frequency and duration of moving, ear fl icking and grooming which were more pronounced in velveted stags than in non-velveted stags in the fi rst 2 h after treatment. Yearling stags that had been velveted exhibited more “playing” behaviour than controls, 24 h after antler removal, possibly associated with a reorganisation of social hierarchy (Pollard et al 1993). Matthews et al (1994) suggested that changes in behaviour may indicate in-creasing pain as anaesthesia wore off, but may also be attributed to chance events. They gave no justifi cation for this proposition and concluded that, based on behavioural measures, “velveted stags were no more stressed than non-velveted controls”. This is in con-trast to the conclusion of Pollard et al (1993), who suggested that some of the behavioural effects were “possibly due to pain”.

Despite contradictory conclusions by various authors and in dif-ferent studies, and limitations in methodology, observations from the literature suggest that removal of velvet antler may be more stressful than handling and restraint alone. There is clearly a need for more validated research on this subject.

A further consideration, not widely discussed in the literature and beyond the scope of a technical review such as this, is the real signifi cance of the stress associated with procedures such as velvet antler removal, performed on farmed livestock. The degree

of stress and its duration are important when assessing the appro-priateness of management and surgical procedures.

Surgical painMatthews and Cook (1991) reported vigorous behavioural re-sponses during surgical removal of antler without analgesia, thus establishing the premise that antler cannot be removed humanely without analgesia. All authors studying surgical pain associated with velvet antler removal have used behavioural responses as an indicator variable, although interpretations of these have differed. Wilson et al (1999) graded behavioural responses from 0 (no re-sponse) to 3 (acute struggle and withdrawal response) for descrip-tive purposes, but combined Scores 1–3 for statistical analysis, based on the New Zealand National Velveting Standards Body audit interpretation (unpublished), and to eliminate the possibil-ity of bias in interpretation between behaviour scores. In contrast, Webster et al (2002) and Schaefer et al (2002) judged Scores 0 and 1 (no response and mild response, respectively) as “non aver-sive” and 2–4 as “aversive”, but gave no technical justifi cation for these distinctions.

Heart rate recorded during antler removal has also been used as an indicator of pain (Matthews and Cook 1991; Pollard et al 1992a; Woodbury et al 2001, 2002). Matthews et al (1990) described variation between animals, as 2/7 stags velveted showed no increase in heart rate during antler removal, while the remaining 5/7 stags showed a statistically signifi cant elevation of heart rate, and distur-bances in electrocardiograph (ECG) pattern. The latter observations appear to have been in stags sedated with xylazine and velveted after differing wait times. Local anaesthetic in that study was administered as a regional nerve block, subsequently shown by Wilson et al (1999, 2000) to be less effective than a ring block. Matthews and Cook (1991) reported the mean heart rate of stags velveted without anal-gesia was 189 beats per minute (bpm), compared with 83 bpm for those given local anaesthetic only, and 105 bpm for those given local anaesthetic and velveted. However, behavioural responses by stags restrained only, or restrained and velveted, were not different (Mat-thews et al 1990), thus the physiological measurements (such as heart rate) and behavioural measurements appeared to confl ict. However, these data and this conclusion should be interpreted with caution since small numbers of deer were used and no statistical analyses were reported. Interpretation is further confused by the report of Pollard et al (1992a) that measurement of heart rate during velvet antler re-moval was confounded by struggling activity.

To reduce the potentially confounding infl uence of different pro-cedures on behavioural and physiological measurements of pain, Read et al (2000) developed an experimental model for investigat-ing velveting procedures that involved tranquillisation of wapiti (Cervus canadensis) stags with zuclopenthixol acetate. Using this model, Woodbury et al (2002) showed increased heart rate during both application of local anaesthetic and compression techniques for inducing analgesia, and during antler removal. The latter observation and other data (Bartels et al 2001) indicate that local analgesia is not always fully effective in providing analgesia for antler removal. How-ever, Woodbury et al (2002) also reported that while systolic blood pressure rose during application of analgesia (induced by injection of local anaesthetic or compression rings) it did not rise during antler removal. This again demonstrates an apparent paradox between physiological and behavioural measures of pain associated with velvet antler removal.

Wilson and Stafford New Zealand Veterinary Journal 50(6), 2002 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

5:58

27

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 5: Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal

Alleviation of surgical painGeneral anaesthesia/sedationDespite being approved for velvet antler removal in New Zealand, general anaesthesia is not feasible for routine antler removal on commercial deer farms. Sedatives such as xylazine, used singly or in combination with other agents, provide inadequate analgesia for velvet antler removal (Wilson et al 1996ab). Alternatives are reviewed by Walsh and Wilson (2002a) later in this issue.

Local analgesiaChemical analgesia, including local analgesia, for velvet antler removal in deer is reviewed in this issue by Walsh and Wilson (2002b). This section reviews the use of local analgesia from a welfare perspective.

The local anaesthetic agent most commonly used for velvet antler removal is 2% lignocaine hydrochloride (Wilson et al 1999). Mat-thews et al (1992) reported a lower proportion of stags showed an aversive response after ring block administration than after regional nerve block (8% vs 33%, respectively). However, in that report the analgesic technique used was not described in detail. Wilson et al (1999, 2000) used larger numbers of stags (22–25 per group) to compare 5, 10 and 15 ml doses of lignocaine used as a ring block with the same drug used as a regional nerve block of the zygomaticotemporal and infraorbital nerves, with or with-out block of the auriculopalpebral nerve. Behavioural response to either an electrical stimulation test, as described by Matthews and Suttie (2001), or surgical removal of the antler, was used to as-sess effi cacy. A “high-site” regional block was more effective than a “low-site” block, and both were improved by addition of an auriculopalpebral nerve block. The onset of analgesia took longer after regional nerve block than after ring block. A high-dose ring block produced analgesia in almost all stags within 1 min of administration. These data showed that administration of 1 ml lignocaine per cm pedicle circumference was the most suitable dose rate for local analgesia of the antler. It was notable that mean behavioural scores following electrical stimulation progressively reduced with time after lignocaine administration (Wilson et al 1999), suggesting that while analgesia was not complete, sensa-tion of pain reduced as time progressed.

Subsequent studies by Bartels et al (2001) showed that lignocaine mixed with bicarbonate (L), bupivacaine (B) alone, or mepi-vacaine (M) alone, and mixtures of LB, LM and MB all produced analgesia. Bupivacaine had a delayed onset of analgesia whereas mixtures containing lignocaine or mepivacaine were rapid in on-set. A test of two concentrations of LB showed the rate of onset of analgesia was more rapid at the higher concentration.

Despite the assertion of Wilson et al (2000) that repeatable anal-gesia should be achievable using a high-dose ring block technique, recent data (Schaefer et al 2002; Webster et al 2002; Woodbury et al 2002) suggest that the reproducibility (consistency between operators) of this technique may not be optimal. Woodbury et al (2002) reported 38% of animals showed an aversive behavioural response and had signifi cantly elevated heart rates during antler removal using this technique. Schaefer et al (2002) reported 17% and Webster et al (2002) reported 2% of animals responded be-haviourally to the nick test and/or cutting, and that may have been an underestimate of total behavioural responses as these authors excluded animals exhibiting a behaviour score of 1 on a 5-point scale, claiming this score represented a “non-aversive”

response. Thus, the accepted “gold standard” against which other forms of analgesia are compared (Wilson et al 2002b) appears to be less than perfect. It is notable that the Farm Animal Welfare Council in the United Kingdom, in presenting its recommenda-tion to prohibit antler removal, concluded that, in relation to lo-cal anaesthesia alone, “there could be no guarantee in all cases that it would be fully effective” (Anonymous 1980), although no data were presented to support that assertion. More research is needed to establish the reliability and reproducibility of local analgesia, and ways of improving its application for both commercial and research purposes, particularly since this technique is used as the standard against which new forms of analgesia are compared (Schaefer et al 2002; Webster et al 2002).

Electronic analgesiaA technique known as “electronic analgesia” is described by Matthews et al (1999a) and Haigh et al (2001). Behavioural responses (Matthews et al 1999a; Haigh et al 2001; Matthews and Suttie 2001; Woodbury et al 2001) confi rmed that it is unreliable in producing suffi cient analgesia for antler removal. Elevation of heart rate and blood pressure in wapiti tranquillised with zuclopenthixol acetate suggests that electronic analgesia is aversive per se (Woodbury et al 2001).

CompressionApplication of a specifi ed low-pressure rubber ring (NaturOTM, AgResearch, Hamilton, NZ) is approved by NAWAC in New Zealand as a method for velvet antler analgesia in yearling stags. Its application, requiring a 1 h wait time, is described by Mat-thews and Suttie (2001). The procedure is included in the revised Velvet Removal Programme (Anonymous 1998). Potentially aver-sive pain during induction, discussed by Wilson et al (2002b), was not discussed by Matthews and Suttie (2001). Compression was used as a painful stimulus in the study of pain in rats, eliciting in-creased spontaneous activity of noci-responsive neurons proximal to the compression tourniquet (Crews and Cahill 1999). Other studies in humans indicated that application of a tourniquet was painful in all subjects, and that narrow bands produced more pain than broad bands (Estebe et al 2000). The acceptability of the rubber ring technique for producing analgesia in young stags needs to be re-evaluated in light of the lack of published evidence demonstrating that its induction is not painful. The lack of be-havioural response to cutting the antler may be due to masking of surgical pain by ischaemic pain caused by the ring.

Recovery of sensation in antler after rubber ring removal took 3 days for animals on which bands were placed for 1 h, and none of a group that had the band in place for 4 h had fully sensitive antlers 15 days afterwards (Matthews and Suttie 2001). In that study, there was a delay of more than 3 h in return to sensation after local anaesthetic injection, compared with 90 min (Bartels et al 2001) in stags which did not have antlers removed. This suggests that the stag’s percep-tion of post-treatment analgesia may be infl uenced by removal of the antler. Matthews et al (1999b) and Matthews and Suttie (2001) showed a small but statistically non-signifi cant difference in velvet antler weight the following year when antlers on the same stag were removed using compression on one and local analgesia on the other antler. However, a further study by Webster et al (2002) suggested that the difference may have been associated with a slightly delayed growth rate since older stags treated with compression, albeit at high-er pressure than the NaturOTM band, in the previous season achieved the same weight of antler at the optimum conformation for removal, but after a longer growth period.

224 New Zealand Veterinary Journal 50(6), 2002 Wilson and Stafford

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

5:58

27

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 6: Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal

High pressure rubber band compression of the antler pedicle in adult stags is currently being evaluated. The application device has been described by Schaefer et al (2002), Webster et al (2002) and Woodbury et al (2002). Schaefer et al (2002) measured infra-red orbital temperature, and Webster et al (2002) measured be-havioural responses, and concluded that application of compres-sion was no more aversive than application of local anaesthesia. However, Woodbury et al (2002) reported a signifi cantly greater elevation of heart rate and blood pressure during application of the compression band than during local anaesthetic administra-tion, suggesting compression may be a painful process. The re-sponse may have been due either to a direct effect of pressure, or to ischaemic pain. Unlike Schaefer et al (2002) and Webster et al (2002), Woodbury et al (2002) also reported signifi cantly greater behavioural responses to surgical removal after compression than after local anaesthetic. While the latter authors specifi ed the pres-sure of the band, Schaefer et al (2002) and Webster et al (2002) did not. It is, therefore, possible the pressure differed between experiments, and there may have been subtle differences in the method of application. The effect of compression requires further evaluation using appropriate experimental models and a range of behavioural and physiological response variables. The issues sur-rounding adoption of new techniques for velvet antler analgesia have been discussed in more detail by Wilson et al (2002b).

Post-surgical painBehavioural differences following velvet antler removal, as dis-cussed above, suggest that stags may feel pain when analgesia ceases. However, few studies have addressed this issue specifi -cally. Pollard et al (1992b) administered acetyl salicylate at velvet removal and recorded a reduction of some behaviours over a 4-h period, suggesting that pain may be responsible for post-velveting behavioural changes observed earlier. A subsequent study using a higher dose of local anaesthetic showed behavioural differences only persisted for about 2 h (Pollard et al 1993). Lignocaine had a mean duration of analgesia of approximately 90 min, and Bupi-vacaine produced analgesia for 4.5–7.0 h, depending on formula-tion (Bartels et al 2001; Bartels 2002). Mepivacaine also provided prolonged action. Mixtures of bupivacaine or mepivacaine with lignocaine provided prolonged duration. Combined or individual use of long-acting local anaesthetics may have a role in velvet ant-ler removal, if research determines that post-operative pain needs to be addressed routinely. Note, however, that although local an-aesthesia virtually abolished pain-related behavioural and cortisol responses during dehorning in calves, responses became evident when effects of different local anaesthetic regimes wore off, 2, 4, 5 or 8 h after dehorning (Petrie et al 1996; McMeekan et al 1998, 1999; Sutherland et al 2002). The role of cautery in alleviating post-operative pain has been studied in dehorned calves (Suther-land et al 2002) but has not been evaluated for antler removal.

Post-surgical sequelaeMixing velveted stags with antlered stags risks injury during re-es-tablishment of their social structure, but no studies have evaluated this practice and it is commonly avoided. Inhalation pneumonia and post-sedation death, presumed to be due to delayed hyper-sensivity (Walker and Middelberg 1988) described in more detail

by Walsh and Wilson (2002a), are untoward sequelae of concern after xylazine administration. Observations at slaughter plants revealed welfare concerns including evidence of inadequate an-algesic techniques (Killorn and Heath 1993), tourniquets being left on, injection site lesions, poor hygiene leading to infection, and skull injuries apparently due to the forceful removal of hard antler (Killorn and Heath 1993; Lloyd 2002). Severe facial cel-lulitis, possibly due to Clostridium septicum infection, has been reported to occur in sporadic cases and as an outbreak (Seifert 1997). Tetanus and fl y-strike are possible sequelae but have not been reported.

Prevention of velvet antler growthFallow (Dama dama) bucks are sometimes particularly aggressive when confi ned and transported, and bruising of carcasses is com-mon (Weilburg 1996). Increasingly, deer are slaughtered at 10–12 months of age (spikers) when they are growing antlers. Thus, there are signifi cant concerns associated with antlers at slaughter plants (Killorn and Heath 1993; Lloyd 2002). The deer industry’s transport code stipulates that deer must not be transported with more than 60 mm of velvet antler (Anonymous 1995). Therefore, in farming practice, antler from spikers is commonly removed when they are small and of limited fi nancial value. It is paradoxi-cal that a welfare cost may be infl icted upon the deer, if it is ac-cepted that velvet antler removal per se does constitute a welfare cost, in order to achieve a welfare benefi t.

Prevention of antler development obviates the need for removal to meet transport compliance standards. Application of a rubber elastrator ring to the developing pedicle prevented pedicle and antler development in most deer, with more reliable effect in fal-low than in red deer (Weilburg 1996). Some regrowth occurred, particularly in red deer, after 30 days. Behavioural studies of stags after application of a rubber elastrator ring to the developing pedicle, prior to velvet antler growth commencement, showed increased walking, standing and ear fl icks compared with deer given no treatment or local anaesthetic prior to application of the ring (Weilburg 1996). No infection or untoward side effects were observed in fi eld trials. This procedure has been approved by NAWAC in New Zealand for use on fallow, but not on red deer (Anonymous 1998).

Surgical removal of the pedicle with a disbudding iron used in cattle successfully prevented antler growth while not impairing liveweight gain to slaughter age (Hamilton et al 1993). However, other studies carried out in New Zealand showed this technique did not always prevent antler growth (Asher 1986).

ConclusionThis review has addressed welfare issues directly associated with the physical process of velvet antler removal and antler growth prevention. It has identifi ed a number of areas that would benefi t from further research to both validate the current acceptance in New Zealand that these processes are defensible and to improve techniques to reduce the welfare impact upon stags.

Presently, published literature reporting observations from studies using several methodologies suggests that there may be some wel-

Wilson and Stafford New Zealand Veterinary Journal 50(6), 2002 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

5:58

27

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 7: Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal

fare cost to stags in terms of distress associated with the removal process, pain in some animals due to suboptimum analgesia, and possibly post-operative pain. However, it is apparent that assessing the welfare implications of velvet antler removal presents unique challenges when differentiating the effects of surgical procedures from those of handling and restraint per se that are associated with the inherent nature of deer and their stage of domestication. While research has developed local analgesia techniques that are highly repeatable, there appears to be a need for investigation of ways to achieve optimum reproducibility. Compression may provide a more reproducible technique but its aversiveness and effectiveness require further investigation, and more research is needed to evaluate post-operative pain. Further research is also needed on the aversiveness of velvet antler removal per se because data in published reports are confl icting or derived from small numbers of animals. Yet other research has not been included in this review because it is reported only in confi dential reports. Ap-propriate analysis, peer review and publication in the scientifi c arena are criteria which are arguably critical to defensibility of animal welfare practices based on science.

Without doubt, research in the past 10 years has provided valu-able information upon which to base decisions on the process of velvet antler removal and its ethical justifi cation. Ultimately, however, judgment on these important questions must take into account the full range of factors involved (Wilson et al 2001), not only those associated with surgical removal as reviewed here. A periodic nett welfare cost:benefi t analysis (Wilson et al 2002b) will help this process as more research data on procedures for and implications of velvet antler removal, combined with more information about the possible human health benefi ts of derived products become available.

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank Professors Des Feilden and Murray Woodbury and Dr Colin Mackintosh for their valuable comments on the manuscript, and acknowledge DEEResearch (Ltd) for access to its recent review of deer welfare.

ReferencesAnonymous. The Animal Welfare Implications of the Harvesting of Deer Antlers

in Velvet. Farm Animal Welfare Council, United Kingdom, Ministry of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Middlesex, 1980

Anonymous. Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare

of Deer During the Removal of Antlers – Code of Animal Welfare No. 5.

Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,

Wellington, 1992

Anonymous. New Zealand Deer Transport Operators Quality Assurance Programme.

New Zealand Game Industry Board, Wellington, 1995

Anonymous. Velvet Removal Programme. National Velveting Standards Body,

New Zealand Game Industry Board, Wellington, 1998

Anonymous. Animal Welfare Act. New Zealand Government Printer, Wellington,

1999

Asher GW. Inhibition of antler development of fallow bucks: The polling

technique. Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians, No. 3, Deer Branch of

the New Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 202–6, 1986

Bartels MM. Studies of local anaesthetics for velvet antler analgesia. MSc thesis,

Massey University, Palmerston North, 2002

Bartels MM, Wilson PR, Caulkett NA, Stafford JK, Mellor DJ. Dynamics of

local anaesthetics for velvet antler analgesia. Proceedings of a Deer Course for

Veterinarians, No. 18, Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association.

Pp 100–8, 2001

Campbell AC. Implementation of the velvet harvesting code of conduct.

Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians, No. 10, Deer Branch of the New

Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 17–22, 1993

Carragher JF, Ingram JR, Matthews LR. Effects of yarding and handling

procedures on stress responses of red deer stags (Cervus elaphus). Applied

Animal Behaviour Science 51, 143–58, 1997

Church JS, Church TL. Development of training programmes for velvet antler

production and removal in Canada. In: Sim JS, Sunwoo HH, Hudson RJ,

Jeong BT (eds). Antler Science and Product Technology. Pp 427–32. Antler

Science and Product Technology Research Centre, Edmonton, 2001

Crews JC, Cahill MA. An investigation of the neurophysiologic mechanisms of

tourniquet-related pain: Changes in spontaneous activity and receptive fi eld

size in spinal dorsal horn neurons. Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine 24,

102–9, 1999

Diverio S, Goddard PJ, Gordon IJ, Elston DA. The effect of management

practices on stress and farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) and its modulation

by long acting neuroleptics: Behavioural responses. Applied Animal Behaviour

Science 36, 363–76, 1993

English AW. Veterinary aspects of deer farming. In: Deer Refresher Course.

Pp 127–202. Proceedings 49, The University of Sydney Post-Graduate

Committee in Veterinary Science, Sydney, 1979

English AW. Velvet Antler. In: Deer Refresher Course. Pp 305–25. Proceedings 72,

The University of Sydney Post-Graduate Committee in Veterinary Science,

Sydney, 1984

Estebe JP, Le Naouures A, Chemaly L, Ecoffey C. Tourniquet pain in a

volunteer study: effect of changes in cuff width and pressure. Anaesthesia 55,

21–6, 2000

Grigor PN, Goddard PJ, Littlewood CA. The relative aversiveness to farmed

deer of transport, physical restraint, human proximity and social isolation.

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56, 255–62, 1998

Haigh JC, Woodbury MR, Stookey JM, Schaefer AL, Caulkett NA, Wilson

PR. New technologies for velvet antler removal: The search for the ideal

method. In: Sim JS, Sunwoo HH, Hudson RJ, Jeong BT (eds). Pp 387–410.

Antler Science and Product Technology. Antler Science and Product Technology

Research Centre, Edmonton, 2001

Hamilton WJ, Kyle DJ, Robson MG. Disbudding of red deer stag calves to

prevent antler growth. Veterinary Record 132, 62–3, 1993

Killorn KJ, Heath C. Welfare concerns at a DSP. Proceedings of a Deer Course for

Veterinarians, No. 10, Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association.

Pp 23–6, 1993

Lloyd K. Welfare of deer at deer slaughter premises. Proceedings of a Deer

Course for Veterinarians, No. 19, Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary

Association. Pp 37–46, 2002

Loza MJ. Sensitive issues for the deer industry. Proceedings of a Deer Course for

Veterinarians, No. 18, Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association.

Pp 73–8, 2001

Matthews LR. Current animal welfare issues in New Zealand. Proceedings of a

Deer Course for Veterinarians, No. 9, Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary

Association. Pp 42–8, 1992

Matthews LR. Deer handling and transport In: Grandin T (ed). Livestock

Handling and Transport. Pp 331–62. CAB International, Wallingford, 2000

Matthews LR, Cook CJ. Deer welfare research – Ruakura fi ndings. Proceedings

of a Deer Course for Veterinarians, No. 8, Deer Branch of the New Zealand

Veterinary Association. Pp 120–7, 1991

Matthews LR, Suttie JM. Research progress in non-chemical techniques for

inducing analgesia prior to velvet antler removal. In: Sim JS, Sunnwoo HH,

Hudson RJ, Jeong BT (eds). Pp 411–26. Antler Science and Product Technology.

Antler Science and Product Technology Research Centre, Edmonton, 2001

Matthews LR, Cook C, Asher GW. Behaviour and physiological responses to man-

agement practices in red deer stags. Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians,

No. 7, Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 74–85, 1990

226 New Zealand Veterinary Journal 50(6), 2002 Wilson and Stafford

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

5:58

27

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Page 8: Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal

Matthews LR, Ingram J, Cook C, Bremner K, Kirton P. Induction and

assessment of velvet analgesia. Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians,

No. 9, Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 69–76, 1992

Matthews LR, Carragher JF, Ingram JR. Post-velveting stress in free ranging red

deer. Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians, No. 11, Deer Branch of the

New Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 138–46, 1994

Matthews L, Pollard J, Ingram J, Mackintosh C, Suttie J, Morris C, Bremner

K. Non-chemical techniques for inducing analgesia prior to velveting. 1.

Electronic Analgesia. Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians, No. 16,

Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 189–92, 1999a

Matthews L, Pollard J, Ingram J, Mackintosh C, Suttie J, Morris C, Bremner

K. Non-chemical techniques for inducing analgesia prior to velveting. 2.

The effect of the NaturOTM technique on subsequent antler production.

Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians, No. 16, Deer Branch of the New

Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 193–4, 1999b

McMeekan CM, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ, Bruce RA, Ward RN, Gregory NG.

Effects of local anaesthesia of 4 or 8 hours duration on the acute cortisol

response to scoop dehorning in calves. Australian Veterinary Journal 76,

281–5, 1998

McMeekan C, Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ, Bruce RA, Ward RN, Gregory NG.

Effects of a local anaesthetic and a nonsteroidal anti-infl ammatory analgesic

on the behavioural responses of calves to dehorning. New Zealand Veterinary

Journal 47, 92–6, 1999

Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ. Integrating practical, regulatory and ethical strategies

for enhancing farm animal welfare. Australian Veterinary Journal 70, 762–8,

2001

Molony V, Kent JE. Assessment of acute pain in farm animals using behavioural

and physiological measurements. Journal of Animal Science 75, 266–72, 1997

Molony V, Kent JE McKendrick IJ. Validation of a method for assessment of

acute pain in lambs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 215–38, 2002

Petrie N, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ, Bruce RA, Ward RN. Cortisol responses of

calves to two methods of disbudding used with or without local anaesthetic.

New Zealand Veterinary Journal 44, 9–14, 1996

Pollard JC, Littlejohn RP. Effects of lighting on heart rate and positional

preferences during confi nement in farmed red deer. Animal Welfare 4, 329–37,

1995

Pollard JC, Suttie JM, Littlejohn RP, Johnstone P, Corson ID. Measurements

of behaviour and heart rate to assess the aversiveness of handling treatments

used for red deer. Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians, No.8, Deer

Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 109–19, 1991

Pollard JC, Littlejohn RP, Johnstone P, Laas FJ, Corson ID, Suttie JM.

Behavioural and heart rate responses to antler removal in red deer. New

Zealand Veterinary Journal 40, 56–61, 1992a

Pollard JC, Littlejohn RP, Johnstone P, Waldrup K, Suttie, JM. The effects of

post-treatment analgesia on behavioural responses to velvet antler removal in

red deer. Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians, No. 9, Deer Branch of

the New Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 49–55, 1992b

Pollard JC, Littlejohn RP, Cassidy AM, Suttie JM. The duration of the

behavioural effects of velvet antler removal. Proceedings of a Deer Course for

Veterinarians, No.10, Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association.

Pp 9–15, 1993

Pollard JC, Littlejohn RP, Suttie JM. Response of red deer to restraint in a Y-

maze preference test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 63–71, 1994

Read M, Caulkett N, McCallister M. Evaluation of zuclopenthixol acetate to

decrease handling stress in wapiti. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 36, 450–9,

2000

Schaefer AL, Cook NJ, Roberston WM, Church J, Church T, Gelbraith J,

Webster JR, Matthews LR. Evaluation of compression for analgesia for velvet

antler removal: Canadian experience, preliminary observations. Proceedings

of a Deer Course for Veterinarians, No. 19, Deer Branch of the New Zealand

Veterinary Association. Pp 133–6, 2002

Seifert D. Post-velveting infections. Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians,

No. 14, Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 229–38,

1997

Stafford KJ, Mesken A. Electro-immobilisation in red deer. Proceedings of a Deer

Course for Veterinarians, No. 9, Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary

Association. Pp 56–68, 1992

Sutherland MA, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ, Gregory NG, Bruce RA, Ward RN.

Effect of local anaesthetic combined with wound cauterisation on the cortisol

response to dehorning in calves. Australian Veterinary Journal 80, 165–7,

2002

Walker IH, Middleberg A. Post-velveting deaths in stags. Proceedings of a Deer

Course for Veterinarians, No. 5, Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary

Association. Pp 128–33, 1988

Wallis T. History and evolution of deer farming and the early velvet industry

in New Zealand. In: Woodhouse I (ed). A Salute to World Deer Farming

– Proceedings of the First World Deer Congress. Pp 21–4. New Zealand Deer

Farmers Association, Christchurch, 1993

Walsh V, Wilson PR. Sedation and chemical restraint of deer. New Zealand

Veterinary Journal 50, …, 2002a

Walsh V, Wilson PR. Chemical analgesia for velvet antler removal in deer. New

Zealand Veterinary Journal 50: …, 2002b

Webster JR, Bremnar KJ, Pierse AJ, Morrow CJ, Matthews LR. Evaluation of

a compression method for producing analgesia for velvet antler removal in red

deer. Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians, No.19, Deer Branch of the

New Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 137–43, 2002

Weilburg V. The prevention of antler growth in deer. MVS thesis, Massey

University, Palmerston North, 1996

Wilson PR. Veterinary aspects of deer farming in New Zealand. Deer Refresher

Course. Pp 37–44. Proceedings 49, The University of Sydney Post-Graduate

Committee in Veterinary Science, Sydney, 1979

Wilson PR, Biemans J, Stafford KJ, Veltman C, Spoorenberg J. Xylazine and

a xylazine/fentanyl/azaperone combination in farmed red deer. 1. Dose rate

comparison. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 44, 81–7, 1996a

Wilson PR, Biemans J, Stafford KJ, Veltman C, Spoorenberg J. Xylazine

and a xylazine/fentanyl/azaperone combination in farmed red deer. 2. Velvet

antler removal and reversal combinations. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 44,

88–94, 1996b

Wilson PR, Thomas DJ, Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ. Routes and doses of lignocaine

hydrochloride for analgesia of the velvet antler of stags. New Zealand Veterinary

Journal 47, 167–74, 1999

Wilson PR, Stafford KJ, Thomas DG, Mellor DJ. Evaluation of techniques

for lignocaine hydrochloride analgesia of the velvet antler of adult stags. New

Zealand Veterinary Journal 48, 182–7, 2000

Wilson PR, Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ, Haigh JC. Velvet antler removal:

international welfare, ethical and legal issues. In: Sim JS, Sunwoo HH,

Hudson RJ, Jeong BT (eds). Antler Science and Product Technology. Pp 363–86.

Antler Science and Product Technology Research Centre, Edmonton, 2001

Wilson PR, Bartels MM, Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ. Analgesia for velvet antler

removal. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 62,

272–5, 2002a

Wilson PR, Woodbury MR, Caulkett MA. Issues surrounding new techniques

for velvet antler analgesia. Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians, No. 19,

Deer Branch of the New Zealand Veterinary Association. Pp 125–32, 2002b

Woodbury MR, Caulkett NA, Baumann D, Read MR. Comparison of

analgesic techniques for antler removal in wapiti. Canadian Veterinary Journal

42, 929–35, 2001

Woodbury MR, Caulkett NA, Wilson PR. Comparison of lignocaine and

compression for velvet antler analgesia in wapiti. Canadian Veterinary Journal

43, 869–75, 2002

Zhang P. China. In: Yerex D (ed). The Farming of Deer: World Trends and Modern

Techniques. Pp. 11–14. Agricultural Promotion Associates Ltd, Wellington,

1982

Accepted for publication 22 October 2002

Wilson and Stafford New Zealand Veterinary Journal 50(6), 2002 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

5:58

27

Sept

embe

r 20

13