EFSA Journal (Jun 2024)

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

  • EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare),
  • Søren Saxmose Nielsen,
  • Julio Alvarez,
  • Dominique Joseph Bicout,
  • Paolo Calistri,
  • Elisabetta Canali,
  • Julian Ashley Drewe,
  • Bruno Garin‐Bastuji,
  • Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas,
  • Christian Gortázar Schmidt,
  • Mette Herskin,
  • Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca,
  • Barbara Padalino,
  • Helen Clare Roberts,
  • Hans Spoolder,
  • Karl Stahl,
  • Antonio Velarde,
  • Arvo Viltrop,
  • Christoph Winckler,
  • Mohan Raj,
  • Denise Candiani,
  • Yves Van der Stede,
  • Virginie Michel

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8835
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 6
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract 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.

Keywords