No abstract

BackgroundCommunication between farmers and veterinary surgeons is reported to differ when involving abattoir rejection data on cattle or sheep.MethodsUsing surveys, distributed online and on paper at livestock markets, this study describes the interest and positive opinion of a sample of UK cattle and sheep farmers in receiving abattoir data.ResultsForty-nine per cent of respondents always received abattoir data (n=37/76). Over 80 per cent of respondents were interested in all suggested rejection conditions and particularly liver fluke and respiratory conditions. Eighty-two per cent of farmers were willing to share data with their veterinary surgeon as the information could be used to inform health plans.ConclusionThe study findings indicate that having an accurate and consistent data system, which is easily accessible to farmers and veterinary surgeons, appears an essential next step to improve the use of existing abattoir data and enhance animal health, welfare and production.

Interventions to control or eradicate neglected zoonoses are generally paid for through the public purse and when these interventions focus on the animal hosts, they are often expected to be performed and financed through the state veterinary service. The benefits of control, however, accrue across the human, animal, and environmental spaces and enhance both public and private interests. Additionally, disease control interventions do not take place in a vacuum and the indirect impacts of our actions should also be considered if the societal benefit of interventions is to be maximised. With the caveat that unintended consequences can and will occur, pre-identifying potential synergies and trade-offs in our disease control initiatives allows for them to be considered in intervention design and monitored during programme roll-out. In this paper, using a One Health approach with the example of Taenia solium control, we identify potential indirect impacts which may arise and how these may influence both our choice of intervention and opportunities to optimise the animal, environmental, and societal benefits of control through maximising synergies and minimising trade-offs.

Background While most cattle and sheep in the United Kingdom are stunned before slaughter, non‐stun methods are permitted to supply meat to specific consumers. This study aimed to identify the existing literature that compared animal welfare indicators during stun and non‐stun slaughter, using a scoping review framework. Method Following a structured search strategy, including the establishment of a PICO (population, intervention, comparator and outcomes) question, a comprehensive literature search of the CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE and PubMed databases, was conducted. A total of 962 papers were identified, of which 16 were selected for data extraction. Results Fourteen papers concluded that welfare at slaughter was negatively impacted at non‐stun slaughter in comparison to stun slaughter; two papers were inconclusive. Welfare indicators identified included biochemical parameters, brain activity and visual signs of consciousness. Limitations regarding inconsistent restraint method, neck cut position and non‐standardised measures of welfare at slaughter are highlighted. Conclusions This study provides further evidence that stunning is an effective method to improve the welfare of sheep and cattle at slaughter. Animal welfare advisors, politicians, religious communities and others interested in animal welfare could use the findings to further discuss and establish new dialogues for producing updated guidance on animal welfare at slaughter.

No abstract