Abstract

Simple SummaryDeveloping effective and humane on-farm euthanasia methods is essential for all livestock industries to ensure that animals do not suffer and are killed humanely. Approved methods are lacking for commercial meat rabbits, potentially leading to poor welfare. We assessed several methods of on-farm killing of cull rabbits of different ages to determine which methods were most effective and humane. These included blunt force trauma (the most commonly used method on rabbit farms), a novel mechanical cervical dislocation device, and a non-penetrating captive bolt device. We evaluated method effectiveness by examining animal reflexes and behaviours after applying the method as well as by examining radiographs of rabbit heads for signs of skull damage, and by assessing the degree of trauma to the brain through dissection and microscopy, because more trauma is generally correlated with enhanced method effectiveness and irreversibility. We found that blunt force trauma resulted in an unacceptably high failure rate, particularly in mature rabbits, whereas the mechanical cervical dislocation and non-penetrating captive bolt devices were both highly effective for killing rabbits humanely and irreversibly. The non-penetrating captive bolt device was the most effective with a 100% success rate and could be used on all rabbits weighing more than 150 g.The commercial meat rabbit industry is without validated on-farm euthanasia methods, potentially resulting in inadequate euthanasia protocols. We evaluated blunt force trauma (BFT), a mechanical cervical dislocation device (MCD), and a non-penetrating captive bolt device (NPCB) for euthanasia of pre-weaned kits, growers, and adult rabbits. Trials were conducted on three commercial meat rabbit farms using 170 cull rabbits. Insensibility was assessed by evaluating absence of brainstem and spinal reflexes, rhythmic breathing, and vocalizations. Survey radiographs on a subsample of rabbits (n = 12) confirmed tissue damage prior to gross dissection and microscopic evaluation. All 63 rabbits euthanized by the NPCB device were rendered immediately and irreversibly insensible. The MCD device was effective in 46 of 49 (94%) rabbits. Method failure was highest for BFT with euthanasia failures in 13 of 58 (22%) rabbits. Microscopically, brain sections from rabbits killed with the NPCB device had significantly more damage than those from rabbits killed with BFT (p = 0.001). We conclude that BFT is neither consistently humane nor effective as a euthanasia method. MCD is an accurate and reliable euthanasia method generally causing clean dislocation and immediate and irreversible insensibility, and the NPCB device was 100% effective and reliable in rabbits >150 g.

Highlights

  • Livestock producers must have effective methods in place to euthanize sick, injured, and cull animals [1,2,3]

  • Brain sections from rabbits killed with the non-penetrating captive bolt device (NPCB) device had significantly more damage than those from rabbits killed with blunt force trauma (BFT) (p = 0.001)

  • Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of several physical methods for euthanizing adult and juvenile rabbits, including BFT, a novel mechanical cervical dislocation device (MCD) device and a NPCB device, as determined by onset of rapid and irreversible insensibility and degree of induced brain damage

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Livestock producers must have effective methods in place to euthanize sick, injured, and cull animals [1,2,3]. A recent survey of Canadian commercial meat rabbit producers established that the most common on-farm euthanasia method in use is blunt force trauma (BFT) [4]. One possible alternative euthanasia method is the non-penetrating captive bolt device (NPCB) device, which is designed to deliver lethal brain trauma without penetrating the skin, reducing potential biosecurity and observer esthetic concerns. This device is used routinely for killing meat rabbits in Ontario abattoirs and has been validated for euthanasia of turkeys and piglets, with killing efficacy rates of 96% and 100%, respectively [7,8] For these indications, the device has been applied twice in rapid succession

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.