Investigation of farmers' perspectives on the disposal of fallen livestock and animal by‐products in Great Britain

Abstract

Two questionnaires were completed by a selection of farms in Great Britain during 2008 and 2009 to ascertain the role of the National Fallen Stock Company (NFSCo) in fallen livestock disposal, the current disposal methods used for fallen livestock and other animal by-products (ABPs), and factors determining use of a particular method. The results demonstrated a significant difference (P<0.001) in NFSCo membership in relation to geographical location and a significant difference (P<0.001) in disposal choice. Farmers' perceptions as to why they did or did not join NFSCo, and why they used particular disposal methods are discussed. Disposal methods of other ABPs (aborted fetuses/stillborn animals and placentas) demonstrated the illegal disposal of aborted fetuses/stillborn animals (19.5 per cent of respondents) and placentas (57.6 per cent of respondents). Overall, 13.7 per cent of respondents used a variety of illegal disposal methods for fallen livestock carcases and other ABPs.

The environmental and biosecurity characteristics of livestock carcass disposal methods: A review

“…Once full, the liquid portion of the vessels is emptied via vacuum suction and is subsequently incinerated or rendered. However, as the volume of waste is considerably reduced, it must only be disposed of intermittently; which may reduce the environmental footprint associated with carcass disposal and also alleviate biosecurity concerns associated with collecting vehicles frequently accessing different livestock holdings (Kirby et al, 2010;Williams et al, 2009).…”

“…In Europe, centralised collection services exist for livestock mortalities where licensed operators collect carcasses and subsequently transfer the animals for incineration (or rendering) as necessary. It is inevitable that the vehicles may cover significant distances between farms whilst they are laden with carcasses from diseased animals and this has raised significant concerns within the livestock industry (Kirby et al, 2010). Such concerns appear to be justified as it was found that transporting animals between premises facilitated the spread of the FMD virus in the UK (Anderson, 2002;Scudamore et al, 2002); whilst transport of carcasses could propagate other serious animal diseases such as avian influenza (Pollard et al, 2008) and BSE (Spouge & Comer, 1997).…”

“…Onfarm disposal methods are favoured by the farming community due to the perceived environmental, practical, economical and biosecurity benefits, therefore processes such as composting and anaerobic digestion have found favour in countries such as the USA and Canada. Under the ABPR in the EU, these options are not deemed safe; however, the legal alternatives are not favoured by the farming community leading to widespread noncompliance and potentially greater environmental risk (due to illegal dumping, etc (Kirby et al, 2010)…”

Bioreduction of Sheep Carcasses Effectively Contains and Reduces Pathogen Levels under Operational and Simulated Breakdown Conditions

“…1 However, due to industry concerns about the costs, practicality and biosecurity of the centralized collection system that was implemented for livestock mortalities, unsanctioned disposal of carcasses is known to occur. 2,3 Bioreduction has been proposed as a practical and effective interim method for storing fallen stock (livestock carcasses) from routine mortalities while actively reducing the final volume to be disposed. 4 The process has been described in detail previously 3,4 and essentially entails the aeration and mesophilic heating of carcasses in a vented, leak-proof vessel containing water.…”

“…1774/2002) prohibited the burial and burning of livestock carcasses in the EU . However, due to industry concerns about the costs, practicality and biosecurity of the centralized collection system that was implemented for livestock mortalities, unsanctioned disposal of carcasses is known to occur. , …”