Project to develop Animal Welfare Risk Assessment Guidelines on Stunning and Killing

Algers, Bo; Anil, Haluk; Blokhuis, H.J.; Fuchs, Klemens; Hultgren, Jan; Lambooij, B.; Nunes, Telmo; Paulsen, Peter; Smulders, F. J. M.

doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2009.en-11

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current study, experienced experts in the field rated behaviours and actions for AW, which secured a relatively complete and reliable assessment of the AW status in the animals observed. In a study to develop guidelines for AW risk assessment of stunning and killing of various species, Algers et al (2009) used a fivelevel scale from 0 ("negligible") to 4 ("critical", fatal) for intensity of adverse AW effects, and scored the effects on beef cattle of hitting, shouting and inadequate handling in the passageway as being intensity 2 ("some pain, malaise, frustration, fear or anxiety; stress reaction; some change in motor behaviour, occasional vocalisation may occur"). In the race into the stunning area, the same authors scored hitting, shouting, untrained or unmotivated handlers, and the use of prods, electric goads or sticks as resulting in effects of intensity 3 ("strong stress reaction; dramatic change in motor behaviour, vocalisation may occur").…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cattle behaviours and stockperson actions related to impaired animal welfare at Swedish slaughter plants

Hultgren

Wiberg

Berg

et al. 2014

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At a slaughter plant, cattle are sometimes exposed to rough handling which may reduce animal welfare (AW). In an observational study at four Swedish commercial slaughter plants, AW-related behaviours of cattle and actions of abattoir stockpersons handling the same animals were recorded simultaneously. The objective was to estimate the occurrence of different behaviours and actions related to negative AW during driving and stunning at largescale cattle abattoirs, assess associations between such behaviours and actions, and analyse differences between plants and animal categories (dairy cows, beef cows, adult bulls and heifers/bullocks). Direct continuous observations of focal animals were made using laptops either in a section of the driving race to the stun box (132 animals) or in the stun box (313 animals), generating a total of 14.5 h of observations. The animals were stunned using a penetrating captive bolt gun or a rifle. Counts per animal of 14 behaviours and 16 stockperson actions were calculated. Sixteen percent of the observed animals displayed total behaviour counts >5 in the driving race, and 2% did so in the stun box; 32 and 8% of the observed animals received total counts >5 of stockperson actions in the race and stun box, respectively. We estimated that two-thirds of the animals were processed without displaying/receiving any of the behaviours/actions associated with severely negative AW. AW scores were acquired by adding together all observed behaviour counts (and action counts, separately) weighted by expert-assessed ratings denoting the degree of impaired AW. Spearman rank correlation was used to analyse associations between behaviour counts, action counts and AW scores. Only three moderate to strong correlations (ρ ≥ 0.4, P ≤ 0.001) between single behaviours/actions were found ("slapping rear" and "slapping front"; "prodding" and "shouting"; and "prodding" and "beating rear" in the driving race). The correlation between AW scores based on behaviours and actions was statistically significant but rather weak both in the driving race (ρ = 0.37, P < 0.0001) and stun box (ρ = 0.22, P = 0.0002). The effects of slaughter plant and animal category on behaviour counts and AW scores were estimated using standard or zeroinflated negative-binomial regression. The risks of most behaviours related to negative AW differed considerably between plants. In the stun box, adult bulls had a 2.5 times higher risk of "struggling-kicking" (P = 0.016) and a 2.0 times higher risk of displaying "backingturning" (P = 0.016) than had dairy cows, indicating poorer welfare for the bulls.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cattle behaviours and stockperson actions related to impaired animal welfare at Swedish slaughter plants

Hultgren

Wiberg

Berg

et al. 2014

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Brazil, since 1998 animal product processors are demanded to implement HACCP, but in broiler chicken slaughterhouses implementation has been strengthened since 2006, with the publication of Circular 668/2006. The same principle of hazard analysis for food safety concerns may be applied to animal welfare issues (Algers et al, 2009;Smulders, 2009). This is a new research area, and meat inspection data may facilitate its development.…”

Section: Federal Inspection Service Potential To Improve Animal Welfamentioning

confidence: 99%

Broiler Chicken Meat Inspection Data in Brazil: A First Glimpse into an Animal Welfare Approach

Souza

Taconeli

Plugge

et al. 2018

Braz. J. Poult. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to study the potential use of carcass condemnation data of broiler chicken slaughterhouses in Brazil as indicators in an animal welfare monitoring program, and to identify points to be addressed to increase data reliability. Data from 2010 to 2015 in the states of Paraná (PR), Santa Catarina (SC) and Rio Grande do Sul (RS) were used. Fractures and bruising were recorded together, representing the most prevalent welfare problem, followed by skin lesion or inflammation. In PR, progressive increases on injury, arthritis, ineffective bleeding, and air sacculitis condemnation may reveal important welfare aspects. High correlation between AWI within PR was more commonly observed than in RS and SC, perhaps as a result of earlier implementation of local meat inspection standardization. Principal component analysis showed changes on condemnation data pattern in PR after standardization, pointing injury and Escherichia coli problems as the main causes for condemnation related to animal welfare. There is considerable potential to improve animal health and welfare surveillance using meat inspection structure that is already in place for food safety purposes, provided that the competent authority harmonizes the procedure of meat inspection among the States, sets specific animal welfare outcomes to be monitored, and integrates condemnation, transport and flock data. It seems crucial to update data collection to establish a routine that allows risk analysis regarding both food safety and animal welfare. In this regard, cooperative work between Federal Inspection and companies seems an interesting approach to promote transparency of the production processes, which would benefit society and animals.

show abstract

“…for prospective sample size calculation); animal or plant health pathways (e.g. Tilletia indica quantitative pathway analysis-EFSA PLH Panel, 2010b); exposure data assessment (EFSA SC, 2006b;Algers et al, 2009); future developments (e.g. emerging risks).…”

Section: Principles (Given In Appendix A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance on Expert Knowledge Elicitation in Food and Feed Safety Risk Assessment

2014

EFS2

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative risk assessments facilitate the decisions of risk managers. In the EU, risk assessment in food and feed safety is the responsibility of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Quantitative risk models should be informed by systematically reviewed scientific evidence, however, in practice empirical evidence is often limited: in such cases it is necessary to turn to expert judgement. Psychological research has shown that unaided expert judgement of the quantities required for risk modelling -and particularly the uncertainty associated with such judgements -is often biased, thus limiting its value. Accordingly methods have been developed for eliciting knowledge from experts in as unbiased a manner as possible. In 2012, a working group was established to develop guidance on expert knowledge elicitation appropriate to EFSA's remit. The resulting Guidance first presents expert knowledge elicitation as a process beginning with defining the risk assessment problem, moving through preparation for elicitation (e.g. selecting the experts and the method to be used) and the elicitation itself, culminating in documentation. Those responsible for managing each of these phases are identified. Next three detailed protocols for expert knowledge elicitation are given -that can be applied to real-life questions in food and feed safety -and the pros and cons of each of these protocols are examined. This is followed by principles for overcoming the major challenges to expert knowledge elicitation: framing the question; selecting the experts; eliciting uncertainty; aggregating the results of multiple experts; and documenting the process. The results of a web search on existing guidance documents on expert elicitation are then reported, along with case studies illustrating some of the protocols of the Guidance. Finally, recommendations are made in the areas of training, organisational changes, expert identification and management, and further developments of expert knowledge elicitation methodology within EFSA. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn the European Union, risk assessment in food and feed safety is the responsibility of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) -the outcomes of EFSA's risk assessments facilitate the decisions of risk managers. The use of comprehensive quantitative models for risk assessment is well established, and the approach will be increasingly adopted by EFSA in the future. These models should be informed by systematically reviewed scientific evidence. However, empirical evidence is often limited, absent, conflicting, of doubtful relevance, open to alternative interpretations or not accessible via publicly available information sources (e.g. bibliographic databases, scientific journals, or websites). In such cases, reliable information can be obtained from knowledgeable experts using systematic and standardized methods for eliciting their knowledge. Even where there is sufficient empirical evidence, consultation with relevant experts can be beneficial, for instance, at the start of a proces...

show abstract

Project to develop Animal Welfare Risk Assessment Guidelines on Stunning and Killing

Cited by 14 publications

References 104 publications

Cattle behaviours and stockperson actions related to impaired animal welfare at Swedish slaughter plants

Cattle behaviours and stockperson actions related to impaired animal welfare at Swedish slaughter plants

Broiler Chicken Meat Inspection Data in Brazil: A First Glimpse into an Animal Welfare Approach

Guidance on Expert Knowledge Elicitation in Food and Feed Safety Risk Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About