On-farm Killing Research Articles

Welfare of horses during killing for purposes other than slaughter.

Horses of different ages may have to be killed on-farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually (i.e. on-farm killing of unproductive, injured or terminally ill animals) or on a large-scale (i.e. depopulation for disease control purposes and other situations, such as environmental contamination, disaster management, etc.). The purpose of this opinion is to assess the hazards and welfare consequences associated with the on-farm killing of horses. The killing procedure is divided into Phase 1 (pre-killing), which includes the processes (i) handling and moving the animals to the killing place and (ii) restraint of the animals before application of the killing method; and Phase 2 (stunning and/or killing), which includes stunning and killing of the animals (for methods that require one step for stunning and another for subsequent killing) or killing only (for methods that simultaneously stun and kill the animals). Three stunning and/or killing methods for Phase 2 for horses were identified: (i) penetrative captive bolt followed by killing, (ii) firearms with free projectiles and (iii) lethal injection. Welfare consequences that horses may experience during each process (e.g. handling stress, restriction of movement and injuries during restraint) were identified and potential hazards are listed for all phases, along with preventive and corrective measures. Animal-based measures (ABMs) to assess all identified welfare consequences were proposed. During the application of the stunning and/or killing methods, horses will experience pain and fear if they are ineffectively stunned/killed or if they recover consciousness. A flowchart including ABMs for the assessment of consciousness and death to monitor stunning and killing effectiveness is provided. Additionally, specific practices deemed unacceptable on welfare grounds are listed.

Plain Language Summary of the Scientific opinion on welfare of horses during on-farm killing for purposes other than slaughter.

Plain Language Summary of the Scientific opinion on welfare of horses during on-farm killing for purposes other than slaughter.

A decade on: where is the UK poultry industry for emergency on-farm killing?

Millions of poultry are farmed intensively every year across the United Kingdom (UK) to produce both meat and eggs. There are inevitable situations that require birds to be emergency killed on farm to alleviate pain and suffering. In Europe and the UK, emergency methods are regulated by the European Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 and The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations (England 2015; Scotland 2012; Wales and Northern Ireland 2014). Cervical dislocation has been reported to be the most widely used method prior to these legislative changes which took place from 1 January 2013. Based on limited scientific evidence and concern for bird welfare, these legislative changes incorporated restrictions based on bird weight for both manual (≤3 kg) and mechanical (≤5 kg) cervical dislocation, and introduced an upper limit in the number of applications for manual cervical dislocation (up to 70 birds per person per day). Furthermore, it removed methods which showed evidence of crushing injury to the neck. However, since legal reform new scientific evidence surrounding the welfare consequences of cervical dislocation and the development of novel methods for killing poultry in small numbers on farm have become available. Whether the UK poultry industry have adopted these novel methods, and whether legislative reform resulted in a change in the use of cervical dislocation in the UK remains unknown. Responses from 215 respondents working across the UK poultry industry were obtained. Despite legal reform, manual cervical dislocation remains the most prevalent method used across the UK for killing poultry on farm (used by 100% of farms) and remains the preferred method amongst respondents (81.9%). The use of alternative methods such as Livetec Nex® and captive bolt guns were available to less than half of individuals and were not frequently employed for broilers and laying hens. Our data suggests there is a lack of a clear alternative to manual cervical dislocation for individuals working with larger species and a lack of gold standard methodology. This risks bird welfare at killing and contributes to inconsistency across the industry. We suggest providing stakeholders with practical alternatives prior to imposing legislative changes and effective knowledge transfer between the scientific community and stakeholders to promote positive change and protect bird welfare.

Efficacy of three different cervical dislocation methods for on-farm killing of layer chicks

Unfit chicks with low viability are often euthanized in the layer industry. An effective euthanasia protocol is characterized by rapid, irreversible insensibility, followed by prompt death. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of three cervical dislocation methods for killing layer chicks (2-3-day-old, avg BW ± SD; 44 ± 3 g, n=40): manual cervical dislocation (CD), assisted manual cervical dislocation (ACD; the bird's ventral neck is placed on a blunt table edge and the back of the neck pressed firmly), and mechanical cervical dislocation by Koechner Euthanizing Device (KED-model-S). All three killing methods were assessed on anesthetized chicks (intramuscular injections of medetomidine [0.3 mg/kg BW] and ketamine [30 mg/kg BW] were used to induce clinical anesthesia). CD and ACD were also evaluated using conscious chicks to compare the killing methods and to determine the effect of anesthesia on response variables. There were no differences in time to loss of pupillary light reflex, cessation of heartbeat, or duration of gasping between conscious chicks killed with CD and ACD, but these values were all longer for conscious compared to anesthetized chicks. KED resulted in longer latencies to loss of pupillary light reflex, cessation of heartbeat, and duration of gasping. Radiographs revealed that both CD and ACD resulted in cervical luxation, mainly below the C4 vertebra, whereas KED did not cause luxation in any of the 8 chicks tested. Chicks killed by CD and ACD presented more subdural hemorrhage (SDH) at the site of cervical dislocation than those killed by KED. None of the killing methods resulted in brain trauma. Compared to CD and ACD, KED resulted in longer latency to brain death and less anatomical pathology indicating a lower efficacy of KED as an on-farm killing method.

On-Farm Killing as a Method to Minimize Pre-Slaughter Stress: A Qualitative Analysis from Switzerland

On-Farm Killing as a Method to Minimize Pre-Slaughter Stress: A Qualitative Analysis from Switzerland

What are the best practices for poultry on-farm killing?

What are the best practices for poultry on-farm killing?

Welfare of cattle during killing for purposes other than slaughter on-farm killing of cattle.

Cattle of different ages may have to be killed on farm for purposes other than slaughter (the latter being defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale, e.g. for economic reasons or for disease control. The purpose of this scientific opinion is to assess the risks associated with the on‐farm killing of cattle. The processes during on‐farm killing that were assessed included handling and moving, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were grouped into mechanical and electrical methods as well as lethal injection. In total, 21 hazards compromising animal welfare were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. Staff was identified as an origin for all hazards, either due to lack of appropriate skills needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible preventive and corrective measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 19 hazards, and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Three welfare consequences of hazards to which cattle can be exposed during on‐farm killing were identified: impeded movement, pain and fear. The welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures related to these were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins of the hazards, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise the welfare consequences are proposed.

Evaluation of physical euthanasia for neonatal piglets on-farm.

Twenty-seven neonate piglets (range from 0.35 to 1.17 kg) were evaluated for the effectiveness of blunt force trauma as a method of on-farm cull. Brainstem function, brain injury, and hemorrhage scores (increasing from 0 to 3) were assessed after striking the head against a concrete floor. Electroencephalograms (EEG) from a subset of 15 piglets were recorded before and after blunt force trauma for electrophysiological assessments. Blunt force trauma was performed by a single experienced farmer in a commercial farm by holding the piglet by its both hind legs and striking the head against the concrete floor. All piglets remained recumbent and did not show brainstem reflexes. Only one piglet did not presented tonic/clonic physical activity. The mean time to the onset of persistent isoelectric EEG was 64.3 ± 7.3 s (range 18 to 115). Total power, theta, alpha, and beta power decreased to approximately 45%, 30%, 20%, and 15% from pretreatment power, respectively, by 15-s post-impact. There were no periods of normal-like EEG after the culling. Bruises in the neck and shoulder were found in 67% and 70% of piglets, respectively. All piglets presented skull fractures with 20% having the nasal bone(s) fractured. Brain damage was found in all piglets, mainly in the frontal lobe(s). The occipital lobe(s) presented the greatest frequency of severe damage. The analysis of the radiographs also found a high frequency of fractures in this region. Hemorrhage was most frequent in the frontal, parietal, occipital lobes, and midbrain. When performed correctly with the appropriate weight class, blunt force trauma can be used as an effective method for the on-farm killing of nursing piglets resulting in death. However, this method should not be promoted over more reliable and repeatable cull methods such as captive bolt gun. As with blunt force trauma, there is a significant potential for animal welfare harm associated with inappropriate practice, lack of accuracy, issues with repeatability, and operator fatigue.

Killing individual poultry on-farm—a survey among veterinarians and farmers

To date, information about reasons to select and kill poultry on-farm and which method veterinarians and poultry producers preferably use is scarce. Little is also known about their knowledge of the legislation regarding on-farm killing methods and of methods alternative to the one(s) they use, as well as their perception of those alternatives. In this study, Flemish poultry veterinarians (n = 13), broiler chicken producers (n = 27), and turkey producers (n = 4) were surveyed on killing methods they currently use in practice and alternative methods, on their opinion about what constitutes an appropriate method for on-farm killing of poultry, and on their reasons for killing. All poultry veterinarians and chicken producers who filled out the survey kill poultry by manual cervical dislocation (CD), whereas some turkey farmers also indicated killing by percussive blow to the head (n = 1) or exsanguination (n = 1). Turkey producers seem to be more inclined not to kill animals with injuries or symptoms of disease as compared to veterinarians or chicken producers, such that moribund turkeys are more likely to remain in the flock. Veterinarians considered the following properties of a killing method important: animal friendliness, applicability inside the stable, a high success rate, and time efficiency. Producers ranked the properties similarly, but for them, ease of performance and cost-efficiency were more important than applicability inside the stable. Producers scored those killing properties rather positively for manual as well as mechanical CD. Veterinarians and chicken producers considered the captive bolt method to be easy to perform, to have a high success rate, to be feasible to perform in the stable, and to be animal-friendly. Turkey producers, however, had doubts about the latter 2 properties. Gas, injection, and electrocution were inferior methods to kill poultry according to producers. In conclusion, manual CD is the most common method for killing broiler chickens and turkeys, and knowledge of, and experience with, alternative methods is very limited, both among veterinarians and producers. Informing them about legislation and training for the use of alternative killing techniques are recommended.

Slaughter of rabbits for human consumption, and on-farm killing of rabbits for other purposes

Slaughter of rabbits for human consumption, and on-farm killing of rabbits for other purposes

Scientific opinion concerning the killing of rabbits for purposes other than slaughter.

Rabbits of different ages may have to be killed on‐farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale (e.g. for production reasons or for disease control). The purpose of this opinion was to assess the risks associated to the on‐farm killing of rabbits. The processes during on‐farm killing that were assessed included handling, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, controlled atmosphere method and lethal injection. In total, 14 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. The staff was identified as the origin for all hazards, either due to lack of the appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for five hazards and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Five welfare consequences of the welfare hazards to which rabbits can be exposed to during on‐farm killing were identified: not being dead, consciousness, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.

Killing for purposes other than slaughter: poultry.

Poultry of different ages may have to be killed on‐farm for purposes other than slaughter (in which slaughtering is defined as being for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale (e.g. because unproductive, for disease control, etc.). The processes of on‐farm killing that were assessed are handling and stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, modified atmosphere, mechanical methods and lethal injection. In total, 29 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these regard stunning and/or killing. Staff were identified as origin for 26 hazards and 24 hazards were attributed to lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Specific hazards were identified for day‐old chicks killed via maceration. Corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 13 hazards, and management showed to have a crucial role in prevention. Eight welfare consequences, the birds can be exposed to during on‐farm killing, were identified: not dead, consciousness, heat stress, cold stress, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were also proposed.

Evaluation of Brain Death in Laying Hens During On-Farm Killing by Cervical Dislocation Methods or Pentobarbital Sodium Injection.

This study investigated changes in the electroencephalograph (EEG) power spectrum as well as physiological and behavioral responses to on-farm killing via mechanical cervical dislocation (MCD), manual cervical dislocation (CD) or intravenous pentobarbital sodium administration in lightly anesthetized laying hens, to evaluate the welfare impact of each method. A mixed group of 44 white Leghorn and Smoky Joe laying hens (60 weeks-old) were anesthetized with isoflurane in oxygen and maintained at 1.5–2% isoflurane/O2 until the killing method was applied. Birds were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups on each trial day. The EEG was recorded bilaterally in a four-electrode montage. After recording a 5-min baseline, the killing method was applied and EEGs and other behavioral and physiological responses, including convulsions, gasping, cessation of body movements and feather erection were recorded for 5 min. Changes in EEG frequency bands (alpha, beta, delta, theta), median frequency (F50), 95% spectral edge frequency (F95), and total power (Ptot) were used to assess the quality of the on-farm killing event. Within 15 s after administration of pentobarbital sodium, there were significant decreases in mean frequency bands, increases in mean F50 and F95, and decreases in Ptot, suggesting brain death. In addition, birds presented a shorter latency to cessation of movement after pentobarbital sodium injection compared to MCD and CD (22 vs. 115 s and 136 s, respectively). There were significant increases in F95 and decreases in Ptot at 120 s after application of CD; and a concomitant decrease in the frequency bands at 135 s and isoelectric EEG at 171 ± 15 s. Changes consistent with brain death after MCD included isoelectric EEG at 207 ± 23 s and a significant decreases in some frequency bands at 300 s post-application. No other significant spectrum frequency changes were observed in the MCD group, suggesting brain death likely occurred near the 5-min endpoint. There was no clear association between behavioral, physiological, and EEG responses within CD and MCD treatments. The data demonstrate that pentobarbital sodium induced a rapid death with minimal behavioral and physiological responses regardless of strain of hens. In comparison, use of CD and MCD resulted in a slow onset of brain death in hens.

Hazard identification for pigs at slaughter and during on‐farm killing

The AHAW Network includes nationally appointed EU Member State organisations representatives with expertise in the fields of animal health and animal welfare. At the AHAW Network meeting held in July 2019, two exercises were held aimed at i) the identification of hazards for pigs at slaughter and ii) the identification of hazards during on-farm killing of pigs. Animals may need to be dispatched on-farm for multiple reasons such as culling of individual injured and sick animals, other reasons associated to stock management, or emergency on-farm killing for disease control. The methods used to cull small numbers of animals on farm are diverse and they may differ from those applied for routine slaughter. For both exercises, for each phase of the killing process, a list of all indicated hazards was produced and discussion was held in order to agree on a common terminology. The Network members indicated the three most relevant welfare hazards that were present in their countries. The resulting lists give indication of the hazards that are most common in European Member States and most urgent to be addressed in order to safeguard animal welfare during pig slaughter and on-farm killing.

Efficacy of a Novel Mechanical Cervical Dislocation Device in Comparison to Manual Cervical Dislocation in Layer Chickens.

Simple SummaryOn-farm euthanasia of diseased or injured chickens is a common task within the poultry industry. For animal welfare, the aim of any euthanasia technique is to achieve rapid loss of sensibility, for the process to cause minimal pain, and for death to follow quickly. Manual cervical dislocation (separating the skull from the spine by hand) is a common method for killing poultry on farms, but it can be aesthetically displeasing. Therefore, different tools for neck dislocation (separating the skull from the spine by mechanical device) are developed as alternative euthanasia methods. These tools need scientific assessment for their effectiveness and humaneness. The Koechner Euthanasia Device (KED) (Koechner MFG. CO., INC, USA) is commercially available as a mechanical cervical dislocation tool for poultry. We compared the efficacy of KED with manual cervical dislocation based on time to brain death (irreversible insensibility) and degree of damage to the brain and neck in anesthetized chickens. The anesthetic agents reduced any distress and pain associated with the killing technique. Our results indicated that KED resulted in less damage to the brain, causing longer times to brain death and cardiac arrest in comparison to manual cervical dislocation. We suggest that manual cervical dislocation is more efficient and humane for layer chicken euthanasia than KED.The main objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of mechanical cervical dislocation using the Koechner Euthanasia Device Model C (KED) in comparison to manual cervical dislocation in layer chickens. Laying hens and/or roosters in three different age groups (12, 27–29, and 65–70 weeks old) were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: manual cervical dislocation in conscious birds (CD), manual cervical dislocation in anesthetized birds (aCD), or mechanical cervical dislocation by KED in anesthetized birds (aMCD). Anesthetized birds received an intramuscular dose of 0.3 mg/kg medetomidine and 30 mg/kg of ketamine to achieve clinical anesthesia. A comparison of CD vs. aCD responses confirmed that the anesthetic plane abolished or reduced clonic convulsions, nictitating membrane reflex, tonic convulsions, and cloacal relaxation. Time to loss of the pupillary light reflex (~123 s), and time to cardiac arrest (~172 s) were longer (p < 0.001) in the birds in the aMCD group than aCD (~71 and ~137 s, respectively). Radiographs revealed that the majority of the birds killed by manual cervical dislocation (CD + aCD) had dislocations between the skull and atlas (C1) or between cervical vertebrae C1–C2. The KED resulted in a majority of dislocations at C2–C3. Birds killed by manual cervical dislocation presented more subdural and parenchymal hemorrhage in the brain stem compared to birds killed by KED. Radiographs indicated the presence of fractures in a few birds killed by either method (CD + aCD versus aMCD). Compared to manual CD, KED resulted in less brain trauma and a longer latency to brain death, indicating a lower efficacy of KED as an on-farm killing method.

Welfare assessment of novel on-farm killing methods for poultry.

There is a need for novel mechanical devices for dispatching poultry on farm following the introduction of EU Regulation (EC) no. 1099/2009 On the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing. We examined three novel mechanical killing devices: Modified Armadillo, Modified Rabbit Zinger, a novel mechanical cervical dislocation device; and traditional manual cervical dislocation. The four killing methods were tested on 230 chickens across four batches. We measured behavioural, electroencephalogram and post-mortem outcomes in anesthetized laying hens and broilers at two life stages (juveniles and adults/slaughter age). Graeco Latin-Square designs systematically randomized killing treatment, bird type, age and kill order. All birds were lightly anaesthetized immediately prior to the killing treatment with inhalation of Sevoflurane. The novel mechanical cervical dislocation method had the highest kill success rate (single application attempt only, with no signs of recovery) of a mechanical method (96%). The Modified Armadillo was the least reliable with 49% kill success. Spectral analysis of electroencephalogram signals at 2 s intervals for successfully killed birds only revealed progressive decreases in median frequency alongside increases in total power. Later, total power decreased as the birds exhibited isoelectric electroencephalogram signal. Latencies to pre-defined spectral ranges associated with unconsciousness showed that birds subjected to manual and novel mechanical cervical dislocation achieved these states sooner than birds subjected to the modified Armadillo. Nevertheless all methods exhibited short latencies (<4 s). The Modified Rabbit Zinger had the shortest duration of reflex persistence for nictitating membrane, pupillary and rhythmic breathing post method application. Of the methods tested, the novel mechanical cervical dislocation device is the most promising mechanical method for killing poultry on-farm based on a range of behavioural, electroencephalogram and anatomical parameters. This device has the potential to fulfil the current need for a mechanical alternative to manual cervical dislocation.

Assessing a Method of Mechanical Cervical Dislocation as a Humane Option for On-Farm Killing Using Anesthetized Poults and Young Turkeys.

Our objective was to determine the efficacy of manual cervical dislocation vs. a mechanical cervical dislocation device for on-farm killing of poults and young turkeys. Forty-two 1- and 3-week old turkeys were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: awake manual cervical dislocation (CD), anesthetized manual cervical dislocation (aCD), or anesthetized mechanical cervical dislocation (MCD). Anesthetized birds received an intramuscular dose of 0.3 mg/kg medetomidine and 30 mg/kg of ketamine to achieve a light plane of anesthesia. A comparison of CD vs. aCD responses indicated that the anesthetic plane did not affect jaw tone or pupillary light reflex, indicators of loss of sensibility and brain death, respectively. MCD was unsuccessful for killing 1-week old poults as indicated by the ongoing presence of the pupillary eye reflex as well as failure to achieve cardiac arrest within 5 min in 5 of 5 birds. Radiographs also indicated no vertebral dislocation or fracture. Pupillary light reflex was present in 98% and jaw tone was present in 73% of turkeys, respectively, for all groups combined, but retention of the pupillary light reflex (P < 0.001) and jaw tone (P = 0.001) was longer for birds killed by MCD. Time to last movement (P = 0.797) and cardiac arrest (P = 0.057) did not differ between method. Survey radiographs demonstrated an effect of method for the average displacement distance at the site of vertebral dislocation, with a greater distance observed in birds killed by CD compared to MCD (P = 0.003). A method by age interaction was observed between CD and MCD for the number of birds with fractures; more vertebral fractures were observed in 3-week old turkeys killed with MCD compared to CD (P = 0.047). Upon gross examination, the majority of birds killed by either method had minimal to no hemorrhage within the brain and spinal cord. However, turkeys killed using CD had more microscopic subdural brain hemorrhage (P = 0.020). Ante-mortem and post-mortem measures suggest that neither manual CD nor the MCD tool used in this study caused immediate insensibility, but CD resulted in a shorter latency to brain death and fewer fractures compared to MCD.

Erratum: Martin, J.E., et al. Welfare Risks of Repeated Application of On-Farm Killing Methods for Poultry. Animals 2018, 8, 39.

The authors wish to make the following correction to their paper[...].

Welfare Risks of Repeated Application of On-Farm Killing Methods for Poultry.

Simple SummaryDuring poultry production, some birds are killed humanely on farm, usually because they are ill or injured. Recent European Union (EU) legislation has restricted the number of birds that can be killed by manual neck dislocation to 70 birds per person per day. We examined whether this limit is meaningful by investigating the effects of repeated application of two methods of killing (neck dislocation and a percussive method, the CashPoultry Killer). Twelve male stockworkers each killed 100 birds (broilers, laying hens, or turkeys) at a fixed rate with each method. Both methods were highly successful, and reflex and behaviour measures confirmed they caused rapid loss of brain function. Importantly, there was no evidence of reduced performance with time/bird number up to 100 birds with either method. The Cash Poultry Killer caused a more rapid death, but it was prone to technical difficulties with repeated use. Neck dislocation has the important advantage that it can be performed immediately with no equipment, which may make it preferable in some situations. We present the first evidence that, at the killing rates tested, there was no evidence to justify the current EU number limit for performance of neck dislocation to kill poultry on farm.Council Regulation (EC) no. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing restricts the use of manual cervical dislocation in poultry on farms in the European Union (EU) to birds weighing up to 3 kg and 70 birds per person per day. However, few studies have examined whether repeated application of manual cervical dislocation has welfare implications and whether these are dependent on individual operator skill or susceptibility to fatigue. We investigated the effects of repeated application (100 birds at a fixed killing rate of 1 bird per 2 min) and multiple operators on two methods of killing of broilers, laying hens, and turkeys in commercial settings. We compared the efficacy and welfare impact of repeated application of cervical dislocation and a percussive killer (Cash Poultry Killer, CPK), using 12 male stockworkers on three farms (one farm per bird type). Both methods achieved over 96% kill success at the first attempt. The killing methods were equally effective for each bird type and there was no evidence of reduced performance with time and/or bird number. Both methods of killing caused a rapid loss of reflexes, indicating loss of brain function. There was more variation in reflex durations and post-mortem damage in birds killed by cervical dislocation than that found using CPK. High neck dislocation was associated with improved kill success and more rapid loss of reflexes. The CPK caused damage to multiple brain areas with little variation. Overall, the CPK was associated with faster abolition of reflexes, with fewer birds exhibiting them at all, suggestive of better welfare outcomes. However, technical difficulties with the CPK highlighted the advantages of cervical dislocation, which can be performed immediately with no equipment. At the killing rates tested, we did not find evidence to justify the current EU limit on the number of birds that one operator can kill on–farm by manual cervical dislocation.

On Farm Evaluation of a Novel Mechanical Cervical Dislocation Device for Poultry.

Simple SummaryLarge numbers of poultry are killed on farm (usually because they are ill or injured) and we have a responsibility to ensure that the methods used have minimal welfare impact. The traditional method of manual cervical dislocation (i.e., “necking” by hand), has been subject to welfare concerns and has recently been restricted by law in Europe, in terms of the number of birds that can be killed with this method per day. Alternative methods need to be developed and these must be humane, practical and reliable in commercial settings. We evaluated the performance and reliability of a novel mechanical cervical dislocation device in comparison with the traditional manual method. We tested the performance of multiple users of each method in commercial laying hen and broiler farm settings. The novel mechanical method was outperformed by the traditional manual method, and there were some issues with training, dependent on the stockworkers’ technique and experience. The results show that while the novel method has the potential to improve welfare, it requires further refinement and training optimization in order to provide a viable alternative to manual cervical dislocation across the poultry industry.Urgent development of alternative on-farm killing methods for poultry is required following the number restrictions placed on the use of traditional manual cervical dislocation by European Legislation (EU 1099/2009). Alternatives must be proven to be humane and, crucially, practical in commercial settings with multiple users. We assessed the performance and reliability of a novel mechanical cervical dislocation device (NMCD) compared to the traditional manual cervical dislocation (MCD) method. NMCD was based on a novel device consisting of a thin supportive glove and two moveable metal finger inserts designed to aid the twisting motion of cervical dislocation. We employed a 2 × 2 factorial design, with a total of eight stockworkers from broiler and layer units (four per farm) each killing 70 birds per method. A successful kill performance was defined as immediate absence of rhythmic breathing and nictitating membrane reflex; a detectable gap in the vertebrae and only one kill attempt (i.e., one stretch and twist motion). The mean stockworker kill performance was significantly higher for MCD (98.4 ± 0.5%) compared to NMCD (81.6 ± 1.8%). However, the MCD technique normally used by the stockworkers (based previous in-house training received) affected the performance of NMCD and was confounded by unit type (broilers), with the majority of broiler stockworkers trained in a non-standard technique, making adaption to the NMCD more difficult. The consistency of trauma induced by the killing methods (based on several post-mortem parameters) was higher with NMCD demonstrated by “gold standard” trauma achieved in 30.2% of birds, compared to 11.4% for MCD (e.g., dislocation higher up the cervical region of the spine i.e., between vertebrae C0–C1, ≥1 carotid arteries severed), suggesting it has the potential to improve welfare at killing. However, the results also suggest that the NMCD method requires further refinement and training optimization in order for it to be acceptable as an alternative across poultry industry, irrespective of previous MCD technique and training.