Animal welfare aspects in respect of the slaughter or killing of pregnant livestock animals (cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, horses)

Welfare of sheep and goats during killing for purposes other than slaughter

Sheep and goats of different ages may have to be killed on-farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually (i.e. on-farm killing of unproductive, injured or terminally ill animals) or on a large scale (i.e. depopulation for disease control purposes and for other situations, such as environmental contamination and disaster management) outside the slaughterhouses. The purpose of this opinion was to assess the hazards and welfare consequences associated with the on-farm killing of sheep and goats. The whole killing procedure was divided into Phase 1 (pre-killing) - that included the processes (i) handling and moving the animals to the killing place and (ii) restraint of the animals before application of the killing methods and Phase 2 - that included stunning and killing of the animals. The killing methods for sheep and goats were grouped into three categories: (1) mechanical, (2) electrical and (3) lethal injection. Welfare consequences that sheep and goats may experience during each process were identified (e.g. handling stress, restriction of movements and tissue lesions during restraint) and animal-based measures (ABMs) to assess them were proposed. During application of the killing method, sheep and goats will experience pain and fear if they are ineffectively stunned or if they recover consciousness. ABMs related to the state of consciousness can be used to indirectly assess pain and fear. Flowcharts including ABMs for consciousness specific to each killing method were included in the opinion. Possible welfare hazards were identified for each process, together with their origin and related preventive and corrective measures. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, ABMs, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were proposed.

Analysis of environmental factors influencing lumpy skin disease outbreak seasonality and assessment of its spread risk in the Saratovskaya oblast of Russia

Background and Aim

Lumpy skin disease (LSD) is a transboundary viral disease of cattle that causes serious economic losses due to a significant decrease in meat and milk productivity. This study analyzed the influence of natural and anthropogenic environmental factors on LSD spread seasonality and assessed the risk of LSD outbreaks in the Saratovskaya oblast of the Russian Federation.

Materials and Methods

Data on LSD outbreaks and environmental factors during different seasons were collected for the period 2011-2020 in the Balkan Peninsula, Middle East, and Russia. Risk assessment was performed using mathematical modeling with generalized linear regression and maximum entropy.

Results

Fourteen statistically significant environmental factors influencing LSD spread were identified. The analysis of MaxEnt models built using the selected factors showed that the presence of the pathogen is mostly exerted by: the density of susceptible cattle (an increased risk is observed at a density above 10 and 20 heads/10 km2 in winter and autumn, with a permanent risk in spring and summer), the density of water bodies (the risk is increased at any density in winter and autumn, in the range of 13-23.5 m2/km2 in spring, in the ranges of 0-8 and over 14.5 m2/km2 in summer), and average monthly precipitation rate (the most risky are 105-185 mm/month in winter, 35 mm in spring, 15-105 mm in summer, and above 50 mm in autumn).

Conclusion

LSD tends to spread during the warm season. Compared with other test zones, the Saratovskaya oblast has a negligible risk of disease spread (in winter), low risk (in spring), or medium risk (in summer and autumn). The annual risk is low to medium.

Guinea Pig Preimplantation Embryos: Generation, Collection, and Immunofluorescence

Studying various animal models is important for comparative biology and to better understand evolutionary development. Furthermore, when aiming to translate findings to human development, it is crucial to select an appropriate animal model that closely resembles the specific aspect of development under study. The guinea pig is highlighted as a useful platform for reproductive studies due to similarities in in utero development and general physiology with the human. This chapter outlines the methods required for guinea pig mating and collection of embryos for in vitro culture and molecular characterization. Specifically, this chapter provides detailed guidance on monitoring the estrus cycle to determine the mating time, performing a vaginal flush and smear to confirm successful mating, performing euthanasia of the guinea pig, and flushing in vivo embryos. Once collected, the embryos can be utilized for numerous downstream applications. Here we will cover embryo culturing and processing embryos for immunofluorescence.

Welfare of equidae during transport

In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of animal welfare legislation. This opinion deals with the protection of horses and donkeys during transport. While the opinion focuses primarily on road transport of horses, there are specific sections dealing with the transport of horses on roll-on-roll-off ferries, horses transported by air and the transport of donkeys. In addition, the opinion covers welfare concerns in relation to a specific scenario identified by the European Commission related to the transport of horses on long journeys to slaughterhouses. Current practices related to transport of horses during the different stages (preparation, loading and unloading, transit and the journey breaks) are described. Overall, 13 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of horses during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: gastro-enteric disorders, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, isolation stress, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, respiratory disorders, resting problems, restriction of movement, sensory overstimulation and separation stress. These welfare consequences and their animal-based measures are described. A variety of hazards were identified related to factors such as inexperienced/untrained handlers, lack of horse training, structural deficiencies of vehicles/facilities, poor driving skills/conditions, horse separation/regrouping, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices. The opinion contains general and specific conclusions in relation to the different stages of transport. Recommendations to prevent hazards and correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and for space allowance. The development of welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey time.

Welfare of cattle during transport

In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with protection of cattle (including calves) during transport. Welfare of cattle during transport by road is the main focus, but other means of transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of cattle during the different stages (preparation, loading/unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 11 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of cattle during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, respiratory disorders, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal-based measures are described. A variety of hazards, mainly relating to inexperienced/untrained handlers, inappropriate handling, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, poor driving conditions, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions, and poor husbandry practices leading to these welfare consequences were identified. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions relating to the different stages of transport for cattle. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and spatial thresholds (minimum space allowance). The development of welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey duration. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to transport of unweaned calves, cull cows, the export of cattle by livestock vessels, the export of cattle by road, roll-on-roll-off ferries and 'special health status animals', and lists welfare concerns associated with these.

Welfare of pigs during transport

In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with protection of pigs during transport. The welfare of pigs during transport by road is the main focus, but other means of transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of pigs during the different stages (preparation, loading/unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 10 welfare consequences were identified as highly relevant for the welfare of pigs during transport based on the severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A variety of hazards were identified, mainly relating to factors such as mixing of unfamiliar pigs, inappropriate handling methods and devices, the use of pick‐up pens, inexperienced/untrained handlers, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, poor driving conditions, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices leading to these welfare consequences. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions relating to the different stages of transport of pigs. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences are made. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions and minimum space allowance within means of transport. The development of the welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey duration. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to transport of cull sows and ‘special health status animals’, and lists welfare concerns associated with these.

Welfare of small ruminants during transport

In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with the protection of small ruminants (sheep and goats) during transport. The main focus is on welfare of sheep during transport by road but other means of transport and concerns for welfare of goats during transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of sheep during the different stages (preparation, loading and unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 11 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of sheep during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, predation stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal-based measures are described. A wide variety of hazards, mainly relating to inappropriate or aggressive handling of animals, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices, leading to these welfare consequences were identified. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions in relation to the different stages of transport. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and spatial thresholds (minimum space allowance). The development of welfare consequences over time were assessed in relation to maximum journey time. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to the export of sheep by livestock vessels, export of sheep by road, roll-on-roll-off vessels and 'special health status animals', and lists welfare concerns associated with these.

Welfare of sheep and goats at slaughter

The killing of sheep and goats for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on-farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of sheep and goats until their death (including slaughtering without stunning), were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of sheep and goats); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into two categories: mechanical and electrical. Twelve welfare consequences that sheep and goats may experience during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problems, social stress, pain, fear and distress. These welfare consequences and their relevant animal-based measures are described in detail in this Scientific Opinion. In total, 40 welfare hazards that could occur during slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 39 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Measures to prevent and correct hazards were identified, and structural and managerial measures were identified as those with a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origin of hazards and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

Application of Methods to Assess Animal Welfare and Suffering Caused by Infectious Diseases in Cattle and Swine Populations

Simple Summary

Infectious disease control in livestock is often motivated by food safety concerns and economic impact. However, most diseases also affect animal welfare. We established an approach to quantify the welfare effect of infectious diseases in cattle (three diseases) and pigs (two diseases). A “suffering score” was established based on the aggregation of severity, duration, and frequency of clinical entities of the diseases. The resulting suffering scores were then used to compare the welfare impact of the different diseases and for comparison to other common welfare hazards. For example, the approach suggested that bovine viral diarrhoea and paratuberculosis are more severe for cattle than infectious bovine rhinotracheitis. In pigs, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome has a much bigger welfare impact than Aujeszky’s disease, assuming all diseases remain endemic.

Abstract

Control of infectious diseases in livestock has often been motivated by food safety concerns and the economic impact on livestock production. However, diseases may also affect animal welfare. We present an approach to quantify the effect of five infectious diseases on animal welfare in cattle (three diseases) and pigs (two diseases). We grouped clinical manifestations that often occur together into lists of clinical entities for each disease based on literature reviews, and subsequently estimated “suffering scores” based on an aggregation of duration, frequency, and severity. The duration and severity were based on literature reviews and expert knowledge elicitation, while frequency was based mainly on estimates from the literature. The resulting suffering scores were compared to scores from common welfare hazards found under Danish conditions. Most notably, the suffering scores for cattle diseases were ranked as: bovine viral diarrhoea and infection with Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis > infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, and for pigs as: porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome > Aujeszky’s disease. The approach has limitations due to the limited data available in literature and uncertainties associated with expert knowledge, but it can provide decision makers with a tool to quantify the impact of infections on animal welfare given these uncertainties.

Electronic data collection to enhance disease surveillance at the slaughterhouse in a smallholder production system

Globally, meat inspection provides data for animal health surveillance. However, paper-based recording of data is often not reported through to higher authorities in sufficient detail. We trialled the use of an electronic meat inspection form in Kenyan slaughterhouses, in lieu of the currently used paper-based format. Meat inspectors in two ruminant slaughterhouses completed and submitted an electronic report for each animal slaughtered at their facility. The reports, which captured information on the animal demographics and any eventual condemnations, were stored in a central database and available in real-time. A stakeholder meeting was held towards the end of the study. Over the 2.75 year study period, 16,386 reports were submitted; a downward linear trend in the monthly submissions was noted. There was a week effect, whereby more reports were submitted on the market day. Of the slaughtered animals, 23% had at least a partial condemnation. The most frequently condemned organs were the liver, lungs and intestines; the primary reasons for condemnations were parasitic conditions. Lack of feedback and difficulty capturing animal origin information were the primary challenges highlighted. The study demonstrated that electronic data capture is feasible in such challenging environments, thereby improving the timeliness and resolution of the data collected.

Slaughter Conditions and Slaughtering of Pregnant Cows in Southeast Nigeria: Implications to Meat Quality, Food Safety and Security

The increase in the slaughter of pregnant cows (SPCs) for meat (except as may be approved by veterinarians on health grounds to salvage the animal) is unethical. SPCs for meat is also counterproductive, detrimental to food security, and may enhance zoonotic disease transmission. In this context, therefore, this current study examined slaughter conditions and the slaughtering of pregnant cows, and the implications for meat quality, food safety, and food security in Southeast Nigeria. The direct observational method was employed to examine the slaughterhouse activities, from when the cattle arrived at the lairage to the post-slaughter stage. A pre-tested and validated closed-ended-questionnaire was used to elicit information on causes of the SPCs and the method of disposal of eviscerated foetuses. Pregnancy status of cows slaughtered was determined by palpation followed by visual examination of the eviscerated and longitudinal incised uteri. The study lasted for six months during which 851 cows out of 1931 slaughtered cattle were surveyed. Assessment/decision-making protocol of slaughterhouse conditions, welfare conditions of slaughter-cattle, reasons for sale or slaughter of pregnant cows, distribution of pregnant cows slaughtered, method of disposal of eviscerated foetuses, and estimated economic losses of SPCs were delineated. Of the 851 cows examined, 17.4% (148/851) were pregnant while 43.2% (64/148) of the total foetuses recovered were in their third trimester. Major reasons adduced for SPCs by proportion of involved respondents were: ignorance of the animals' pregnancy status (69.7%, 83/119), high demand for beef (61.3%, 73/119), preference for large-sized cattle (47.9%, 57/119), economic hardship (52.1%, 62/119) and diseases conditions (42.9%. 51/119). The conduct of SPCs for meat would not be profitable. This is because within six months, an estimated loss of about 44,000 kg of beef, equivalent to ₦ 70.1 million or $186,400 would be associated with SPCs and the consequential foetal wastages. If losses were to be replicated nationwide across slaughterhouses, 4.3 tons of beef estimated at ₦ 8.6 billion or $23 million would be wasted. Improving slaughter conditions and the welfare of slaughter-cattle in Nigerian slaughterhouses through advocacy, training of slaughterhouse workers, and strict implementation of laws promoting humane slaughter practices is imperative. Preventing SPCs for meat and inhumane slaughter practices at the slaughterhouse would enhance the welfare needs of slaughter cattle, grow the national herd size, and improve meat safety as well as food security.

Welfare of cattle at slaughter

The killing of cattle for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of cattle until their death (including slaughtering without stunning), were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of cattle); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into two categories: mechanical and electrical. Twelve welfare consequences that cattle may be exposed to during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problems (inability to rest or discomfort during resting), social stress, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and their relevant animal-based measures are described. In total, 40 welfare hazards that could occur during slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 39 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Measures to prevent and correct hazards were identified, and structural and managerial measures were identified as those with a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origin of hazards, and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

Welfare of cattle during killing for purposes other than slaughter on-farm killing of cattle

Cattle of different ages may have to be killed on farm for purposes other than slaughter (the latter being defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale, e.g. for economic reasons or for disease control. The purpose of this scientific opinion is to assess the risks associated with the on-farm killing of cattle. The processes during on-farm killing that were assessed included handling and moving, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were grouped into mechanical and electrical methods as well as lethal injection. In total, 21 hazards compromising animal welfare were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. Staff was identified as an origin for all hazards, either due to lack of appropriate skills needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible preventive and corrective measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 19 hazards, and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Three welfare consequences of hazards to which cattle can be exposed during on-farm killing were identified: impeded movement, pain and fear. The welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures related to these were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins of the hazards, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise the welfare consequences are proposed.

Slaughter of Pregnant Cattle in Denmark: Prevalence, Gestational Age, and Reasons

The slaughter of pregnant cattle gives rise to ethical controversy. We estimated the prevalence of pregnant cattle, elucidated the reasons for their slaughter, and in light of our findings, discussed the ethics of sending pregnant cattle for slaughter. Among 825 female cattle >353 days of age admitted to a Danish abattoir, 187 (23%) were found to be pregnant. There was no apparent difference in the proportion of pregnant animals between dairy and non-dairy cattle. "Health"-related slaughter was most frequent in dairy herds (70%), whereas "production"-related slaughter was most frequent in non-dairy herds (63%). While many farmers considered it unethical to slaughter pregnant cows without a good reason for doing so, many dairy farmers identified animal welfare as an important parameter in the decision, which was typically when the general condition of the cow or heifer would make it difficult for her to pass through calving and subsequent lactation. The many pregnant animals sent for slaughter were often the result of deliberate choices. Non-dairy farmers often kept a bull with their female cattle, and in many instances, this resulted in the mating of cattle intended for slaughter. Although considered ethically problematic by many dairy farmers, the slaughter of pregnant dairy cattle was often considered better for the cow compared to a stressful lactation period.

Guidance on Communication of Uncertainty in Scientific Assessments

This document provides guidance for communicators on how to communicate the various expressions of uncertainty described in EFSA's document: 'Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments'. It also contains specific guidance for assessors on how best to report the various expressions of uncertainty. The document provides a template for identifying expressions of uncertainty in scientific assessments and locating the specific guidance for each expression. The guidance is structured according to EFSA's three broadly defined categories of target audience: 'entry', 'informed' and 'technical' levels. Communicators should use the guidance for entry and informed audiences, while assessors should use the guidance for the technical level. The guidance was formulated using evidence from the scientific literature, grey literature and two EFSA research studies, or based on judgement and reasoning where evidence was incomplete or missing. The limitations of the evidence sources inform the recommendations for further research on uncertainty communication.