TY - JOUR

T1 - Welfare of pigs during killing for purposes other than slaughter

AU - EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, null

AU - Saxmose Nielsen, Søren

AU - Alvarez, Julio

AU - Bicout, Dominique Joseph

AU - Calistri, Paolo

AU - Depner, Klaus

AU - Drewe, Julian Ashley

AU - Garin-Bastuji, Bruno

AU - Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis

AU - Gortázar Schmidt, Christian

AU - Michel, Virginie

AU - Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel

AU - Roberts, Helen Clare

AU - Sihvonen, Liisa Helena

AU - Spoolder, Hans

AU - Stahl, Karl

AU - Viltrop, Arvo

AU - Winckler, Christoph

AU - Candiani, Denise

AU - Fabris, Chiara

AU - Van der Stede, Yves

AU - Velarde, Antonio

PY - 2020/7/20

Y1 - 2020/7/20

N2 - Abstract Pigs at different stages of the production cycle may have to be killed on-farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually (e.g. severely injured pigs) or on a large scale (e.g. unproductive animals or for disease control reasons). This opinion assessed the risks associated with the on-farm killing of pigs and included two phases: 1) handling and moving of pigs and 2) killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were subdivided into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, gas mixture methods and lethal injection. Four welfare consequences to which pigs can be exposed to during on-farm killing were identified: pain, fear, impeded movement and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. In total, 28 hazards were associated with the welfare consequences; majority of the hazards (24) are related to Phase 2 (killing). The main hazards are associated with lack of staff skills and training, and poor-designed and constructed facilities. Staff was identified as an origin of all hazards, either due to lack of skills needed to perform appropriate killing or due to fatigue. Corrective measures were identified for 25 hazards. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, hazard origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed and mitigation measures proposed.

AB - Abstract Pigs at different stages of the production cycle may have to be killed on-farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually (e.g. severely injured pigs) or on a large scale (e.g. unproductive animals or for disease control reasons). This opinion assessed the risks associated with the on-farm killing of pigs and included two phases: 1) handling and moving of pigs and 2) killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were subdivided into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, gas mixture methods and lethal injection. Four welfare consequences to which pigs can be exposed to during on-farm killing were identified: pain, fear, impeded movement and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. In total, 28 hazards were associated with the welfare consequences; majority of the hazards (24) are related to Phase 2 (killing). The main hazards are associated with lack of staff skills and training, and poor-designed and constructed facilities. Staff was identified as an origin of all hazards, either due to lack of skills needed to perform appropriate killing or due to fatigue. Corrective measures were identified for 25 hazards. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, hazard origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed and mitigation measures proposed.

KW - pigs

KW - on-farm killing

KW - hazards

KW - animal welfare consequences

KW - animal-based measures

KW - preventive/corrective measures

U2 - 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6195

DO - 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6195

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 32704316

VL - 18

SP - 1

EP - 72

JO - E F S A Journal

JF - E F S A Journal

SN - 1831-4732

IS - 7

M1 - e06195

ER -