• No results found

47 Humane Transport and Slaughter of Farm Animals

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "47 Humane Transport and Slaughter of Farm Animals"

Copied!
8
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Health and

Sustainable

Agriculture

Editor: Christine Jakobsson

Sustainable Agriculture

(2)

Introduction

For most animals transport is at the most infrequent and probably a unique experience ending at the slaughter-house, except perhaps for some intrafarm movement of young stock (Figure 47.1). They are therefore likely to find the experience alarming and stressful, but the proc-ess can be managed to minimise discomfort and distrproc-ess. Increased lengths of journeys for animals, as slaughter-houses become reduced in number and therefore fur-ther from the sites of production, add to the problem. Nevertheless, we should consider the animals’ needs and reduce the stress experiences insofar as this is possible. This applies from an animal welfare perspective, but also from a strictly economic one; stress and mechanical dam-age from injury reduce both the quality and quantity of useable meat produced at the end of the operation. This section considers warm-blooded farm animals. Those wishing to consider the issues regarding the transport and slaughter of fish are recommended to access the Humane Slaughter Association’s website listed below in the rec-ommended reading section.

Transport

Broom (2000) reviewed the welfare problems associated with the transport of farm animals. EU legislation

regard-Humane Transport

and Slaughter

of Farm Animals

David Arney and Andres Aland

Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia

ing the transportation of animals covers regulation of the design and maintenance of vehicles, and is designed to ensure that personnel involved are sympathetic to the needs of the animals under their temporary care, that they are properly trained, that the stress experienced by trans-ported animals is minimised and thereby welfare condi-tions are optimised.

Measures used to estimate the welfare of animals during transport include physical measures: weight loss (particularly in poultry; Mitchell et al., 2003), incidence of injuries, bruising, mortality, evidence of morbid-ity, panting/shivering and assessment of carcase quality. Behavioural measures might include a decrease in time

47

Figure 47.1. Moving young calves within a farm. Fine for a very short trip but hardly suitable for a longer journey. Photo: H. Jaakson.

(3)

spent ruminating and lying and physiological indicators might include heart rate and analysis of cortisol and fatty acids in serum. Assessment of the suitability of the trans-port should also be included in any audit of the welfare of the transport process; is it clean, likely to cause injury, does it have sufficient ventilation and is it appropriate? In this last regard, low-volume animals, such as wild boar, ostrich and deer, have been reported to be transported in unmodified trailers designed for other stock (Bornett-Gauci et al., 2006). Transport facilities designed for the purpose of such species are at best much less easily avail-able than those for more familiar livestock species.

Inappropriate handling during the entire transport op-eration (loading, journey time and unloading) can result in poorer meat quality (Voisinet et al., 1997), and this can be more stress-inducing than the transportation itself (Waas et al., 1999). Impairment of meat quality is not only through mechanical damage to the carcase, but also the chemical changes in the meat, such as reduced pH, (a value higher than 6 leads to dark cutting meat) and the consequence of high levels in the meat of cortisol, which is released during periods of stress (Smith and Dobson, 1990). Poultry are at particular risk during loading. In many European broiler systems they are picked up from the floor by the legs in handfuls of up to eight per person (Mitchell and Kettlewell, 2004). The working conditions (low light, dusty, high volumes of bird removal, 1,000 birds per man hour expected) and poor pay are not condu-cive to an appreciation of the birds’ welfare. Mechanical collection devices have been developed which are in-creasingly being used on production units. While there is some evidence that stress to the chickens can be reduced with these, there is also evidence that physical damage to the chickens can be increased (Ekstrand, 1998).

Consideration of the transport process should include loading and unloading (including personnel handling skills, conditions, widths of approach passageways and the angle of the ramp – this should not be steep), as well as the actual journey. All chutes and other facilities for loading animals should be designed to minimise stress to the animal as they proceed through the loading process. The flooring around the loading area should provide suffi-cient traction for the animals to avoid slipping. Factors to consider during the journey include the length, road type (road surface, topology and the number and severity of

curves; Jago et al., 1997), vehicle type, how the animals are grouped, where they are positioned in the vehicle and the quality of the driving, which should be smooth and steady with no unnecessarily sharp braking or accelera-tion; Tarrant (1990) found that a third of floored animals during transport were caused by sharp cornering. For the transport of poultry it has been proposed that the greatest threat to their welfare is heat stress (Mitchell et al., 1998), even in conditions where the external temperature is sub-zero (Knezacek et al., 2000).

Regarding the extent of journey time, findings in the literature differ, but there is evidence that longer journeys increase the welfare problems for transported animals linearly, for poultry (Carlyle et al., 1997; Nijdam et al., 2004) as well as for mammal species (Dalin et al., 1993; Waas et al., 1999). There is also evidence of habituation by animals to transport events.

Animals should preferably be transported in groups that are familiar, or at least with animals of the same size, to reduce aggression. Animals ought not to be moved dur-ing the sensitive part of their sexual cycle, and if possible single species should be moved together. If the numbers of animals being transported are high, stress is increased and this can lead to mortality in poultry (Nijdam et al., 2004). However if there are too few animals being transported this increases the chances of individual animals losing their balance and falling over. There should be enough room for the animals to lie down if they choose. Guidance figures for cattle have been suggested by Tarrant (1990)

of: 0.77 m2 for a 250 kg animal, 1.13 m2 for a 450 kg

ani-mal and 1.63 m2 for a 650 kg animal. It has been

recom-mended that when deer are being transported there should

be a space allowance of at least 0.4 m2 per animal (Waas

et al., 1997), somewhat lower than the previous figures. Higher numbers will increase the need for sufficient ven-tilation for all animals, and this is of particular importance for poultry (Mitchell and Kettlewell, 2004). Regarding the position in the vehicle, higher heart rates have been found in animals at the back of the vehicle (Waas et al., 1997). It can be assumed that this is because of more movement, both horizontal and vertical, experienced at the rear, so if possible animals should be loaded towards the front.

Less commonly transported animals may be at more risk of welfare problems through unfamiliarity with their needs (Bornett-Gauci et al., 2006), and the use in

(4)

prac-tice of equipment and vehicles designed for other species. Consequently, on-farm slaughter of animals such as deer is probably preferable to transport to an abattoir; com-parison of animals shot in the field with those transported for slaughter has shown that cortisol and incidences of dark cutting meat in the carcase both increased (Pollard et al., 2002).

Different animal species are affected differently by transport and handling. More domesticated species are generally less disturbed, while low-volume farm ani-mals such as deer, wild boar, ostrich and wild aniani-mals that have not been habituated to transport events are more likely to suffer from the experience (Bornett-Gauci et al., 2006). Broom (2000) has suggested that, of domesticated animals, sheep are least affected, cattle are sometimes af-fected, pigs are always affected and poultry handled by humans are always severely affected. There may also be breed differences within species.

Lairage

This is the time and place spent between arrival at a slaughterhouse and the beginning of the slaughter opera-tion, a period that should be kept to a minimum, although there should be sufficient time allowed for recovery from the stress of the journey – three hours for pigs (Warriss et al., 1998). It is a stressful environment that is strange, with unfamiliar sounds and smells. The vocalisations of stressed animals, combined with human shouting, which is thought to be particularly abhorrent to animals (Weeks, 2008), can make this a particularly stressful auditory envi-ronment, especially as the auditory thresholds of these an-imals are thought to be lower than that of humans (Heffner and Heffner, 1983). Personnel should be sympathetic and trained to recognise problems and to move animals calm-ly and quietcalm-ly. The longer the time that animals spend in lairage, the more bruising is to be found on the animals (Warriss et al., 1998), the more broiler chickens found dead before the slaughter process begins (Nijdam et al., 2004), and the greater the increase in physiological stress indica-tors (at least in rabbits; Liste et al., 2009). Behavioural welfare indicators, including vocalisations, suggest that the welfare of animals in lairage can be improved by dim

lighting, misting (Figure 47.2) and large pen size. Weeks (2008) has suggested minimum space allowances of 1.7

m2 for cattle, 0.56 m2 for sheep and 0.42 m2 for pigs, in

ideal conditions, with a short lairage period.

The area should be well ventilated. This is true for all animals, but poultry are at particular risk of heat stress while in lairage (Hunter et al., 1998). There should be access to drinking water at all times, and to feed and appropriate bedding if kept overnight. Ideally, animals should not be kept next to other species and not next to unfamiliar conspecifics. If different species need to be kept in close proximity while at lairage the types of spe-cies mixed should be considered. For example in the case of deer at lairage the presence of pigs was found to be the cause of more stress than cows. Aggressive animals should be separated. There should be a designated casu-alty pen for animals that are sick or injured, and animals that are unable to walk should be slaughtered in situ.

Slaughter

The slaughter of animals commonly involves stunning (rendering unconscious), rapidly followed by sticking (exsanguination), which should rapidly lead to death. Carried out correctly this should involve as little pain

Figure 47.2. Pigs being misted while awaiting slaughter. Photo: A. Tänavots.

(5)

and suffering to the animals as possible. Welfare problems arise if something goes wrong in this process, either the animals are insufficiently stunned or the period between stun and stick is so long that the animal regains conscious-ness. Signs of effective stunning include a tonic phase: collapsed animal, no regular breathing, fixed and dilated pupils with no corneal reflex, a relaxed jaw with the tongue hanging out and a clonic phase: muscle relaxation, invol-untary kicking, eyeballs drift downwards and urination or defecation. These signs are not common to all methods of stunning, which can lead to inaccurate estimation by personnel who are more familiar with one system.

Methods of stunning are commonly either mechani-cal concussion of the central nervous system or electri-cal stunning. Larger animals, such as cattle, are stunned with a captive bolt to the head. Sheep and pigs are usu-ally stunned by electrodes applied to the head, and poul-try have their heads immersed and electrocuted in water baths. The design of the water baths, and the birds’ entry, should be such as to reduce the likelihood of an electric shock prior to effective stunning of the bird. Animals, pigs and poultry particularly, may also be stunned using carbon dioxide in gas tunnels, but there is concern that although the stunning may be effective this may be more stressful than the other methods (Hänsch et al., 2009).

Prior to slaughter, animals should be moved calmly along the race, which should ensure easy passage, with no sharp angles. Poultry have a more complicated pre-stunning procedure as they need to be shackled. This can lead to wing flapping, pain for the birds, and downgrad-ing of the carcase quality. Stress can be reduced at shack-ling by holding the bird’s legs for 1-2 seconds afterwards (Wotton and Wilkins, 2003). As there is wide variation in the electrical resistance of birds (between and within species), the current required to effectively stun birds also varies (Wotton and Wilkins, 2003). As birds are common-ly stunned in groups of more than 10, this means that in any group of birds some may not be stunned, while others may be stunned but suffer impairment to their meat qual-ity (Gregory and Wilkins, 1989). The method of stunning with gas is becoming more widely used, particularly for poultry. It removes the need for uncrating after transpor-tation, removes the necessity of handling and shackling of birds while they are conscious, and all birds in a crate are stunned at the same time, avoiding the problem

de-scribed above of individuals in a group remaining con-scious (Hänsch et al., 2009). These are all positive wel-fare benefits.

Appropriate handling is important at slaughter too. Both stunning and sticking procedures need to be correct-ly and quickcorrect-ly applied (Anil et al., 2000). It is particularcorrect-ly important that the stun to stick interval is as short as pos-sible (Figure 47.3). With electric water bath stunning for poultry, the current applied is very important for welfare; too high and the meat will be damaged, too low and the bird will not be stunned. In light of the welfare problems associated with transport, it might improve welfare if animals could be slaughtered on-farm. Indeed this is the case with animals that are wild or recently domesticated, and which comprise a small proportion of total livestock, such as deer, which can be shot in the field or slaughtered in mobile abattoirs. Although the former sounds crude it is probably much the best method in terms of welfare:

Figure 47.3. A pig that has been stunned and suspended ready for stick-ing, an interval that should be as short as possible. Photo: A. Tänavots.

(6)

shooting with a rifle is accurate up to a range of 40 m, and up to 10 individuals can be shot without noticeably disturbing the rest of the group (MAFF, 1989). However, deer are still transported to distant abattoirs for slaughter, because of concerns about hygiene standards, legislative restrictions, cost-effectiveness and the aversion that some farmers have to killing animals that they have reared themselves (Bornett-Gauci, 2006).

Religious Slaughter

This is a subject heavily loaded with controversy. Muslim (Halal) and Jewish (Shechta) slaughter involves the sticking of an animal without it having been previously stunned. The animal is handled and stuck while still con-scious. It is believed by defenders of this method that this ensures a thorough bleed-out of the animal, leads rapidly to unconsciousness and is painless. Opposition to this method is based on the belief that without stunning the animal is more likely to endure pain and distress. Many would say that the experience of being held and stuck, even with a sharp knife as its defenders claim, is undoubt-edly stressful and painful. Work by Anil et al. (2004) on sheep slaughter suggests that stunning, by captive bolt or electrical electrodes, has no impairment on the bleed-out efficiency, and some Muslim groups accept that animals that have been stunned before being bled can be regarded as Halal slaughter. We can use science to estimate the suffering endured by animals in any slaughter method, but as individuals and as societies, we need to address whether to permit the freedom for people to follow reli-gious imperatives or to recognise the importance of ani-mal welfare, which in this case probably conflict.

Conclusions

Transport is a rare event in the life of most farm animals, usually to slaughter, but we should not neglect the fact that this can be a serious welfare problem. Not only this, but poorly designed and executed handling and transport can also cause economic losses, the quality of meat can

be impaired by stress and injury, and the amount of recov-ered meat for human consumption can also be reduced in quantity. There are a range of factors to be addressed when considering optimal transport conditions, including handling, loading and unloading procedures, and selec-tion of animals to be transported, in addiselec-tion to the de-sign of the vehicle and details of the journey, not only the length but also the smoothness of the ride. Lairage is also potentially stressful, an unfamiliar environment with, probably, strange animals and even species in close proximity. The length of time spent in lairage should be short, as longer duration leads to more physical damage in addition to welfare concerns, but should be sufficient-ly long to allow the animal to recover. The slaughtering process usually involves an initial stunning before the animal is killed by sticking. The animal should not regain consciousness between these two events, and so the stun-stick interval should be as short as possible. Slaughter that is carried out differently, e.g. in accordance with Jewish and Muslim religious codes, involves no stunning prior to sticking, so the animals are conscious when stuck. It is believed that this leads to a more through bleed-out of the slaughtered animal, although this has been disputed. And that the suffering endured by the animal is no different, which is also disputed.

(7)

611, 98 pp. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_ Opinion/ahaw_report_pigwelfare_tailbiting_en.pdf?ssbinary=true (Accessed 2009-09-07)

EFSA 2005 (Broom, D., Gunn, M., Edwards, S., Wechsler, B., Algers, B., Spoolder, H., Madec, F., von Borell, E. and Olsson, O.) The welfare of weaning and rearing pigs: effects of different space al-lowances and floor types. In: Annex to the The EFSA Journal (2005) 268. 129 pp. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/ Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_op_ej268_pigwelfare_report_en3,0. pdf?ssbinary=true (Accessed 2009-09-07)

Chapter 46

Further reading

Appleby, M.C., Mench, J.A. and Hughes, B.O. 2004. Poultry behaviour

and welfare. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International.

Berg, C. 2002. Health and welfare in organic poultry production. In:

Acta vet. scand. 2001, Suppl. 95, 37-45.

Council of the European Union, 1999. Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. In: Official Journal of the European Communities.

L 203/53-57. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.

do?uri=OJ:L:1999:203:0053:0057:EN:PDF.

Council of the European Union, 2007. Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production. In: Official Journal of the

European Union. L 182/19-28. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/

LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:182:0019:0028:EN:PDF.

LayWel, 2006. Welfare implications of changes in production sys-tems for laying hens. In: European Commission, 6th Framework

Programme, contract No. SSPE-CT-2004-502315.

http://www.lay-wel.eu/.

National Chicken Council, 2005. Animal welfare guidelines and audit

checklist. Washington, D.C.: National Chicken Council. http://www.

nationalchickencouncil.com/files/AnimalWelfare2005.pdf. Perry, G.C. (ed.) 2004. Welfare of the laying hen. Wallingford, U.K.:

CABI Publishing

United Egg Producers. 2008. Animal husbandry guidelines for U.S. egg

laying flocks. 2008 Edition. Alpharetta, GA: United Egg Producers.

http://www.uepcertified.com/docs/UEP-Animal-Welfare-Guidelines-2007-2008.pdf

Weeks, C. and Butterworth, A. 2004. Measuring and auditing broiler

welfare. Wallingford, U.K: CABI Publishing

Recommended Reading

Appleby, M., Cussen, V., Lambert, L. and Turner, J. (eds.) 2008. Long

distance transport and welfare of farm animals. Wallingford. UK:

CABI International.

Grandin, T. (ed.) 2007. Livestock handling and transport. Wallingford. UK: CABI International.

Humane Slaughter Association, website: http://www.hsa.org.uk

Chapter 47

Anil, M.H., Whittington, P.E. and McKinstry, J.L. 2000. The effect of the sticking method on the welfare of slaughter pigs. In: Meat

Science. Vol. 55, pp. 315-319.

Anil, M.H., Yesildere, T., Aksu, H., Matur, E., McKinstry, J.L. Erdogan, O., Hughes, S. and Mason, C. 2004. Comparison of religious slaugh-ter of sheep with methods that include pre-slaughslaugh-ter stunning, and the lack of differences in exsanguination, packed cell volume and meat quality parameters. In: Animal Welfare. Vol. 13, pp. 387-392. Bornett-Gauci, H.L.I., Martin, J.E. and Arney, D.R. 2006. The welfare

of low-volume farm animals during transport and at slaughter: A review of current knowledge and recommendations for future re-search. In: Animal Welfare. Vol.15, pp. 299-308.

Broom, D.M. 2000. Welfare assessment and welfare problem areas dur-ing handldur-ing and transport. In: Grandin, T. (ed.) Livestock handldur-ing

and transport, 2nd edition. Wallingford, UK: CABI publishing.

Carlyle, W.W.H., Guise, H.J. and Cook, P. 1997. Effect of time between farm loading and processing on carcase quality of broiler chickens. In: Veterinary Record. Vol. 141, p.364

Dalin, A.M., Magnusson, U., Haggendal, J. and Nyberg, L. 1993. The effect of transport stress on plasma levels of catecholamines, corti-sol, corticosterol-binding globulin, blood cell count and lymphoctye proliferation in pigs. In: Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. Vol. 34, pp. 59-68.

EFSA 2004. Opinion of the scientific panel on animal health and

wel-fare AHAW on a request from the Commission related to welwel-fare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main com-mercial species of animals. Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-093.

Summary, Opinion and Report: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/ efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620775454.htm;Report:http:// www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/opinion_ ahaw_02_ej45_stunning_report_v2_en1,1.pdf?ssbinary=true EFSA 2006. Opinion of the scientific panel on animal health and

welfare AHAW on a request from the Commission related with the welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing applied to commercially farmed deer, goats, rabbits, ostriches, ducks, geese . Question number: EFSA-Q-2005-005. Summary,

Opinion and Report: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620773440.htm. Report:http://www.efsa. europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_stunning2_re-port1.pdf?ssbinary=true

Ekstrand, C. 1998. An observational cohort study of the effects of catching methods on carcass rejection rates in broilers. In: Animal

Welfare. Vol. 7, pp. 87-96

Gregory, N.G. and Wilkins, L.J. 1989. Effect of stunning current on carcass quality in chickens. In: Veterinary Record. Vol. 121, pp. 530-532.

Heffner, R.S. and Heffner, H.E. 1983. Hearing in large mammals, horse

equus caballus and cattle bos taurus. In: Behavioural Neuroscience.

Vol. 97, pp. 299-309

Hunter, R.R., Mitchell, M.A, Carlisle, A.J., Quinn, A.D., Kettlewell, P.J, Knowles, T.G. and Wariss, P.D. 1998. Physiological responses of broilers to pre-slaughter lairage: Effects of the thermal micro-en-vironment? In: British Poultry Science, Vol. 39. pp. 53-54

(8)

Hänsch, F., Nowak, B and Hartung, J. 2009. Behavioural and clinical response of turkeys stunned in a v-shaped carbon dioxide tunnel. In:

Animal Welfare. Vol.18 pp. 81-86.

Jago, J.G., Harcourt, R.G. and Matthews, L.R. 1997. The effect of road-type and distance transported on behaviour, physiology and carcass quality of farmed red deer cervus elaphus. In: Applied Animal

Behaviour Science. Vol. 51, pp. 129-141.

Knezacek, T.D., Audren, G.F., Mitchell, M.A, Kettlewell, P.J, Hunter, R.R., Classen, H.L., Stephens, S., Olkowski, A.A., Barber, E.M. and Crowe, T.G. 2000. Temperature heterogeneity and moisture ac-cumulations in trailers transporting broilers under canadian winter conditions. In: Poultry Science. Vol. 79, supp.1, p.31

Liste, G., Villaroel, M., Chacon, G., Sanudo, C., Olleta, J.L., Garcia-Belenguer, S., Alierta, S. and Maria, G.A 2009. Effect of lairage du-ration on rabbit welfare and meat quality. In: Meat Science. Vol.82 pp. 71-76.

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food MAFF. 1989. Code of

rec-ommendations for the welfare of livestock. Farmed deer. London,

UK: MAFF Publications.

Mitchell, M.A. and Kettlewell, P.J. 2004. Transport and handling. In: Weeks, C.A. and Butterworth, A. (eds.) Measuring and auditing

broiler welfare. Wallingford. UK: CABI Publishing. pp. 145-160.

Mitchell, M.A., Carlisle, A.J., Hunter, R.R. and Kettlewell, P.J. 2003. Weight loss in transit. An important issue in broiler transportation. In: Poultry Science. Vol. 82, supp.1, p.52

Mitchell, M.A., Hunter, R.R., Kettlewell, P.J and Carlisle, A.J. 1998. Heat and moisture production of broilers during transportation. A whole vehicle direct calorimeter. In: Poultry Science. Vol. 77, supp.1, p.4

Nijdam, E., Arens, P., Lambooij, E., Decuypere, E. and Stegeman, J.A. 2004. Factors influencing bruises and mortality of broilers dur-ing catchdur-ing, transport and lairage. In: Poultry Science. Vol.83 pp. 1610-1615.

Pollard, J.C., Littlejohn, R.P., Asher, G.W., Pearse, A.J.T., Stevensen-Barry, J.M., McGregor, S.K., Manley, T.R., Duncan, S.J., Pollock, K.L. and Prescott, J. 2002. A comparison of biochemical and meat quality variables in red deer cervus elaphus following either slaugh-ter at pasture or killing at a deer slaughslaugh-ter plant. In: Meat Science. Vol.60. pp. 85-94.

Smith, R.F. and Dobson, H. 1990. Effect of pre-slaughter experience on behaviour, plasma cortisol and muscle pH in farmed red deer. In:

Veterinary Record. Vol.126, pp. 155-158

Tarrant, P.V. 1990. Transportation of cattle by road. In: Applied Animal

Behaviour Science. Vol.28, pp. 153-170.

Voisinet, B.D., Grandin, T., O’Connor, S.F., Tatum, J.D. and Deesing, M.J. 1997. Bos indicus cross feedlot cattle with excitable tempera-ments have tougher meat and a higher incidence of borderline dark cutters. In: Meat Science. Vol.46, pp.367-377.

Waas, J.R., Ingram, J.R. and Matthews, L.R. 1997. Physiological re-sponses of red deer cervus elaphus to conditions experienced during road transport. In: Physiology and Behaviour. Vol. 61, pp. 931-938 Waas, J.R., Ingram, J.R. and Matthews, L.R. 1999. Real-time

physi-ological responses of red deer cervus elaphus to translocations. In:

Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 63, pp. 1152-1162.

Warriss, P.D., Brown, S.N., Edwards, J.E. and Knowles, T.G. 1998. Effect of lairage time on levels of stress and meat quality in pigs. In:

Animal Science. Vol. 66, pp. 255-261

Weeks, C.A. 2008. A review of welfare in cattle, sheep and pig lairages with emphasis on stocking rates, ventilation and noise. In: Animal

Welfare. Vol. 17 pp.275-284

Wotton, S. and Wilkins, L.J. 2003. Primary processing of poultry. In: Weeks, C.A. and Butterworth, A. (eds.) Measuring and auditing

broiler welfare. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. pp. 161-180.

Chapter 48

93/119/EC Council Directive of 22 December 1993 on the protection of

animals at the time of slaughter or killing

EC No 854/2004 Regulation of the European Parliament of the Council

of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organization of official controls

EC No 1099/2009 Council Regulation of 24 September 2009 on the

protection of animals at the time of killing

Grandin, T. 2006. Progress and challenges in animal handling and slaughter in the U.S. In: Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 129–139

Sandström, V., Wotton, S.B., Berg, C. and Algers, B. 2008. Proposal of

monitoring system for the assessment of cattle welfare in abattoirs.

Welfare Quality sub project 2, WP 2.3, Report December 15th, 55 pp

Wotton, S. and Wittington, P. 2008. Capacity building & training for animal welfare: slaughter. In: Algers, B., Blokhuis, H. and Keeling, L. (eds.) Proceedings ‘Animal welfare at slaughter and killing for

disease control – emerging issues and good examples’, Sweden, 2008. Pp 48-52.

Chapter 49

Appleby, M.C. 1999 What should we do about animal welfare? Oxford: Blackwells.

Appleby, M.C. 2005 Sustainable agriculture is humane, humane agri-culture is sustainable. In: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental

Ethics 18, 293-303

Appleby, M.C., Cutler, N., Gazzard, J., Goddard, P., Milne, J.A., Morgan, C. and Redfern, A. 2003 What price cheap food? In:

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16, 395-408

Appleby, M.C., Mench, J.A. and Hughes, B.O. 2004. Poultry behaviour

and welfare (including chapter on Economics). Wallingford, UK:

CAB International.

Fraser, D., Weary, D.M., Pajor, E.A. and Milligan, B.N. 1997 A scien-tific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. In:

Animal Welfare 6, 187-205

Grandin, T. 2004 Principles for the design of handling facilities and transport systems. In: Benson, G.J. and Rollin, B.E. (eds.) The

well-being of farm animals: Challenges and solutions. Ames: Blackwell.

pp. 145-166

Hemsworth, P.H. 2004 Human-livestock interaction. In: Benson, G.J. and Rollin, B.E. (eds.) The well-being of farm animals: Challenges

References

Related documents

In contrast, for low values of π, the model is consistent with a pooling equilibrium in which both leaders simply adopt the normal policy, independent of the state, expecting

These suggestions focus on the education and knowledge is needed for all involved roles, how system and different technology needs to be redesigned, the need to investigate the

Gobodo-Madikizela discussed the importance of dealing with deep human traumas, starting from the writings of Simon Wiesenthal and Hannah Arendt and relating this in a most

In light of the competence of mining authori- ties to impose requirements and conditions, as well as the concerns identiied above regarding local planning decisions and

Currently a committee is investigating the above mentioned questions, and is expected to present its findings in March 2007. According to the Council of Legislation, one of the

Hade Ingleharts index använts istället för den operationalisering som valdes i detta fall som tar hänsyn till båda dimensionerna (ökade självförverkligande värden och minskade

The storing of the food can be divided in three parts, make food last longer, plan the meals and shopping and keep track on the food we have.. The final result is the smart

They state that a building must “be designed, built and demolished so that natural resources are used sustainably” and “the building, its materials and components must be able to