Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T08:18:34.900Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using science to support ethical decisions promoting humane livestock slaughter and vertebrate pest control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

DJ Mellor  and
KE Littin
DJ Mellor*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
KE Littin
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: D.J.Mellor@massey.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ethical principles guide decisions about what we consider to be right or wrong proposals and actions, so that when value judgements are made these engage us in ethics. Ethical thinking is clearly relevant to decisions about the way we treat animals, and such thinking has led to the commonly held view that animal use by people is acceptable provided that such use is humane. The ethical requirement that we treat animals humanely means that we must minimise the harms we do to all animals in our care or under our control. Accordingly, we must assess what harms are done to the animals, how bad each harm is in terms of its intensity and duration, what methods are available or can be developed to minimise each harm, and the relative effectiveness of those methods of harm minimisation. We must also seek to use the most humane methods currently available that can be practically applied. Ethically driven scientific evaluations of this sort have improved the humaneness of livestock slaughter and vertebrate pest control. For instance, detailed studies of different pre-slaughter stunning methods have validated their use to pre-empt the pain and distress that otherwise conscious animals would experience during the fatal neck cut and the short period of consciousness (sensibility) that follows it Likewise, reducing injuries caused by restraint traps has improved the humaneness of this vertebrate pest control method, and comparing the effects of different poisons has allowed the least humane ones to be identified. Difficult questions nevertheless remain at the problematic interface between quantitative scientific observations and their interpretation regarding the suffering that animals may experience, as well as questions about the relativities of different types of suffering.

Keywords

animal welfareethicshumane pest controlhumane slaughterminimising harmscientific assessment of harm

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue S1: Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium, Edinburgh, 2-4 April 2003 , February 2004 , pp. S127 - S132
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bager, F, Braggins T, J, Devine, C E, Graahuis, A E, Mellor, D J, Tavener, A and Updell, M P 1992 Onset of insensibility at slaughter in calves: effects of electroplectic seizure and exsanguination on spontaneous electrocortical activity and indices of cerebral metabolism. Research in Veterinary Science 52: 162–173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bager, F, Shaw, F, Tavener, A, Loeffen, M and Devine, C 1990 Comparison of EEG and ECoG for detecting cerebrocortical activity during slaughter of calves. Meat Science 27: 211–225CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banner, M, Bulfield, G, Clark, S, Gormally, L, Hignett, P, Kimbell, H, Milburn, C and Moffitt, C J 1995 Report of the Committee to Consider the Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals. Her Majesty's Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Battye, J 1998 Ethical issues and animal use in science. In: Mellor, D J, Fisher, M and Sutherland, G (eds) Ethical Approaches to Animal-Based Science pp 11–18. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching: Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, D K, Cook, C J, Devine, C E, Gilbert, K V, Tavener, A, Langdon, S, Isaacs, S and Maasland, S A 1993 Electrical stunning of red deer (Cervus elaphus). New Zealand Veterinary Journal 41: 126–130CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, C J 1998 Serotonergic and cholecystokinin antagonists change patterns of response in rats to oral sodium monofluoroacetate. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 46: 76–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, C J and Devine, C E Electrical stunning of cattle: aspects of animal welfare and meat quality. Proceedings of the 12th World Buiatrics Congress, 18-23 August 2002, Hanover, Germany (in press).Google Scholar
Cook, C J, Devine, C E, Gilbert, K V, Smith, D D and Maasland, S A 1995 The effect of electrical head-only stun duration on electroencephalographs measured seizure and brain amino acid neurotransmitter release. Meat Science 40: 137–147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eason, C, Wickstrom, M, Milne, L, Warburton, B and Gregory, N 1998 Implications of animal welfare considerations for pest control research: the possum as a case study. In: Mellor, D J, Fisher, M and Sutherland, G (eds) Ethical Approaches to Animal-Based Science pp 125–130. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching: Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Fisher, M 1998 Intersections between ethics and science in the promotion of animal welfare. In: Mellor, D J, Fisher, M and Sutherland, G (eds) Ethical Approaches to Animal-Based Science pp 33–37. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching: Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, D M, Pajor, E A and Milligan, B N 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Gregory, N G 1987 The physiology of electrical stunning and slaughter. In: Humane Slaughter of Animals for Food pp 3–13. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Gregory, N G 1989/90 Slaughtering methods and equipment. Veterinary History 6: 73–84Google ScholarPubMed
Gregory, N G 1998a Animal Welfare and Meat Science. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Gregory, N G 1998b Rationale for controlling vertebrate pests. In: Mellor, D J, Fisher, M and Sutherland, G (eds) Ethical Approaches to Animal-Based Science pp 121–124. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching: Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Gregory, N G, Milne, L M, Rhodes, A T, Wickstrom, M and Eason, C T 1998 Effect of potassium cyanide on behaviour and time to death in possums. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 46: 60–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heiss, H 1904 Humane Slaughtering. Curtis and Beamish: Coventry, UKGoogle Scholar
King, C M 1990 The Handbook of New Zealand Mammals. Oxford University Press: New Zealand, AucklandGoogle Scholar
King, C M and Edgar, R E 1977 Techniques for trapping and tracking stoats (Mustela erminea): a review and a new system. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 4: 193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambooy, E 1987 Recent developments in electrical stunning. In: Humane Slaughter of Animals for Food pp 21–25. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Levinger, I M 1995 Shechita in the Light of the Year 2000: a Critical Review of the Scientific Aspects of Methods of Slaughter and Shechita. Maskil L'David: Jerusalem, IsraelGoogle Scholar
Littin, K 1999 Research on humane pest control and new ideas about suffering. In: Baker, R M, Mellor, D J and Monamy, V (eds) The Use of Wildlife for Research pp 108–112. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching: Glen Osmond, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Littin, K E, Mellor, D J, Warburton, B and Eason, C T Animal welfare and ethical issues relevant to the humane control of vertebrate pests. New Zealand Veterinary Journal (in press).Google Scholar
Littin, K E and O'Connor, C E 2002 Guidelines for Assessing the Welfare Impacts of Vertebrate Poisons. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0/02/006. Landcare Research: Lincoln, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Littin, K E, O'Connor, C E, Gregory, N G, Mellor, D J and Eason, C T 2002 Behaviour, coagulopathy and pathology of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) poisoned with brodifacoum. Wildlife Research 29: 259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAFF 1997 Evaluation of Fully Approved or Provisionally Approved Products: Evaluation on Assessment of Humaneness of Vertebrate Control Agents (Issue No 74). Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: York, UKGoogle Scholar
Marks, C A 1996 Research directions for humane burrow fumigation and predator baiting. In: Fisher, P M and Marks, C A (eds) Humaneness and Vertebrate Pest Control pp 50–57. Ropet Printing: Tynong North, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Marks, C A 1999 Ethical issues in vertebrate pest control: can we balance the welfare of individuals and ecosystems? In: Baker, R M, Mellor, D J and Monamy, V (eds) The Use of Wildlife for Research pp 79–89. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching: Glen Osmond, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J and Littin, K E 2003 The humaneness of rodent pest control. Animal Welfare 12: 1–37Google Scholar
Mellor, D J 1998 How can animal-based scientists demonstrate ethical integrity? In: Mellor, D J, Fisher, M and Sutherland, G (eds) Ethical Approaches to Animal-Based Science pp 19–31. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching: Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Mellor, D J 1999 Guest editorial: Aspects of possum control bioethics. He Korero Paihama — Possum Research News 12: 3Google Scholar
Mellor, D J 2000 Learning from refinement strategies applied at low and high levels of noxiousness. In: Balls, M, van Zeller, A M and Halder, M E (eds) Developments in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 31A: Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation pp 65–77. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Mellor, D J 2003 Guidelines for the humane slaughter of the fetuses of pregnant ruminants. Surveillance 30: 26–28Google Scholar
Mellor, D J and Gregory, N G 2003 Responsiveness, behavioural arousal and awareness in fetal and newborn lambs: experimental, practical and therapeutic implications. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 51: 2–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NAWAC 2001 Discussion Paper on the Animal Welfare Standards to Apply when Animals are Commercially Slaughtered in Accordance with Religious Requirements. National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee: Wellington, New Zealand. Available at http://www.maf.govt.nz/AnimalWelfareGoogle Scholar
Newhook, J C and Blackmore, D K 1982 Electroencephalographs studies of stunning and slaughter of sheep and calves, Part 2. Meat Science 6: 295–300CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, C E, Airey, A T and Littin, K E 2003 Relative Humaneness Assessment of Possum Poisons. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0203/158. Landcare Research: Lincoln, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Oogjes, G 1996 The ANZFAS view of vertebrate pest control using chloropicrin fumigation and 1080 poisoning. In: Fisher, P M and Marks, C A (eds) Humaneness and Vertebrate Pest Control pp 9–12. Ropet Printing: Tynong North, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Rowsell, H C, Ritcey, J and Cox, F 1979 Assessment of humaneness of vertebrate pesticides. Proceedings of the Association of Laboratory Animal Science 1978-1979 pp I 59-249. Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Science: Calgary, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Christiansen, S B and Appleby, M C 2003 Farm animal welfare: the interaction of ethical questions and animal welfare science. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Animal Welfare 12: 469–478Google Scholar
Sandøe, P, Neilsen, B L, Christensen, L G and Sorensen, P 1999 Staying good while playing God — the ethics of breeding farm animals. Animal Welfare 8: 313–328Google ScholarPubMed
UFAW 1987 Humane Slaughter of Animals for Food. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Warburton, B 1998 The “humane” trap saga: a tale of competing ethical ideologies. In: Mellor, D J, Fisher, M and Sutherland, G (eds) Ethical Approaches to Animal-Based Science pp 131–137. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching: Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Warburton, B and Choquenot, D 1999 Animal welfare and pest control — the context is important. In: Baker, R M, Mellor, D J and Monamy, V (eds) The Use of Wildlife for Research pp 90–99. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching: Glen Osmond, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Warburton, B and O'Connor, C E Research on vertebrate pesticides and traps: do wild animals benefit? Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, 11-15 August 2002, New Orleans, USA (in press).Google Scholar
Warring, R 1974 Electrical stunning: a review of the literature. Veterinary Bulletin 46: 617–635Google Scholar