Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:40:12.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of swine euthanasia criteria and analysis of barriers to euthanasia in the United States using expert opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

CR Mullins ,
MD Pairis-Garcia ,
KA George ,
R Anthony ,
AK Johnson ,
GJ Coleman ,
J-L Rault  and
ST Millman
CR Mullins
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, 2029 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
MD Pairis-Garcia*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, 2029 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
KA George
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, 2029 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
R Anthony
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508, USA
AK Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 2356F Kildee Hall, Ames, IA 50011, USA
GJ Coleman
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, Animal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne, Alice Hoy Building 162, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
J-L Rault
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, Animal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne, Alice Hoy Building 162, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
ST Millman
Affiliation:
Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, 2201 Lloyd Veterinary Medical Center, Ames, IA 50011, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: pairis-garcia.1@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Timely euthanasia on swine farms can help to reduce the incidence of poor welfare outcomes for compromised pigs (Sus scrofa) when recovery is prolonged or impossible. Timely euthanasia relies upon caretakers’ abilities to identify compromised pigs and administer euthanasia in various environments. To determine appropriate timelines and most common reasons for on-farm euthanasia, an online survey was conducted with members of the United States National Pork Board. Additionally, two focus groups were conducted to investigate barriers and possible solutions associated with timely euthanasia. Clinical signs related to poor locomotion (57.6%), prolapses (47.2%), and hernias (43.5%) were identified by the greatest percentage of respondents who believed immediate euthanasia was warranted, while a greater percentage of respondents believed euthanasia was not warranted for clinical signs related to the integumentary (90.3%), reproductive (75.8%), and respiratory (67.5%) systems. The most common reason for euthanasia was poor body condition in pre-weaned piglets and non-ambulatory or severely weak for both breeding and non-breeding pigs. In the focus groups, two themes were identified when evaluating barriers to euthanasia on-farm, and participants agreed that making timely decisions relies upon several dimensions of risk analysis. An unsupportive farm culture was identified as a critical barrier to timely euthanasia decision-making, suggesting that caretaker characteristics may play a role in the success of any timely euthanasia programme. This present study has highlighted areas for future research and demonstrated the need to extend educational efforts both to swine industry leaders and producers to improve overall animal welfare by ensuring timely euthanasia in swine.

Keywords

animal welfaredecision-makingeducationeuthanasiaswinetimeliness
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , November 2017 , pp. 449 - 459
Copyright
© 2017 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.)

References

Arluke, A 1994 Managing emotions in an animal shelter. In: Manning, A and Serpell, J (eds) Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives pp 145–165. Routledge: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
AVMA 2013 AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals, 2013 Edition. American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumburg, USAGoogle Scholar
Baumann, B and Bilkei, G 2002 Emergency-culling and mortal-ity in growing/fattening pigs in a large Hungarian ‘farrow-to-finish’ production unit. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 109: 26–33Google Scholar
Blackwell, TE 2004 Production practices and well-being: swine. In: Benson, GJ and Rollin, BE (eds) The Well-Being of Farm Animals pp 241–269. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470344859.ch12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V and Clarke, V 2006 Using thematic analysis in psychol-ogy. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, G, Vraa-Andersen, L and Mousing, J 1995 Causes of mortality among sows in Danish pig herds. Veterinary Record 137: 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.137.16.395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coffey, A and Atkinson, P 1996 Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies pp 26–53. Sage Publications Inc: Thousand Oaks, USAGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GJ, Hemsworth, PH, Hay, M and Cox, M 2000 Modifying stockperson attitudes and behaviour towards pigs at a large commercial farm. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00073-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, DA, Smyth, JD and Christian, LM 2009 Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons Inc: Hoboken, USAGoogle Scholar
Engblom, L, Lundeheim, N, Dalin, A and Andersson, K 2007 Sow removal in Swedish commercial herds. Livestock Science 106:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Duncan, IJH, Edwards, SA, Grandin, T, Gregory, NG, Guyonnet, V, Hemsworth, PH, Huertas, SM, Huzzey, JM, Mellor, DJ, Mench, JA, Špinka, M and Whay, HR 2013 General principles for the welfare of animals in production sys-tems: the underlying science and its application. The Veterinary Journal 198: 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.06.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemus-Benjamin, M, Kramer, S, Bratton, A and Conklin, T 2015 A perspective of stockpersons and the humane euthanasia of swine. MSU Pork Quarterly 20(1): 1–6Google Scholar
Hall, MJ, Ng, A, Ursano, RJ, Holloway, H, Fullerton, C and Casper, J 2004 Psychological impact of the animal-human bond in disaster preparedness and response. Journal of Psychiatric Practice 10: 368–374. https://doi.org/10.1097/00131746-200411000-00005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ and Barnett, JL 1994 Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90168-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, TB, Kristensen, HH and Toft, N 2012a Quantifying the impact of lameness on welfare and profitability of finisher pigs using expert opinions. Livestock Science 149: 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.07.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, TB, Toft, N, Bonde, MK, Kongsted, AG, Kristensen, AR and Sørensen, JT 2012b Herd and sow-related risk factors for mortality in sows in group-housed systems. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 103: 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pre-vetmed.2011.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joinson, C 1992 Coping with compassion fatigue: burned out and burned up – has caring for others made you too tired to care for yourself? Nursing 22(4): 116–121Google Scholar
Kerr, JC and Cameron, ND 1995 Reproductive performance of pigs selected for components of efficient lean growth. Animal Science 60: 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800008444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, DL 1998 Planning Focus Groups: Focus Group Kit 2 pp 55–69. Sage Publications Inc: Thousand Oaks, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328171.n6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, WEM, Meyer, RE, Roberts, J and Lascelles, D 2006 Financial and welfare implications of immediately euthanizing compro-mised nursery pigs. Journal of Swine Health and Production 14: 25–34Google Scholar
Mort, M, Baxter, J, Bailey, C and Convery, I 2008 Animal dis-ease and human trauma: the psychosocial implications of the 2001 UK foot and mouth disease disaster. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 11: 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888700801925984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB 1998 Suffering of animals. In: Bekoff, M and Meaney, CA (eds) Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare pp 329–330. Greenwood Press: Westport, USAGoogle Scholar
Mullins, CR, Pairis-Garcia, MD, Campler, MR, Anthony, R, Johnson, AK, Coleman, GJ and Rault, J-L The development of an interactive computer-based training program for timely and humane on-farm pig euthanasia. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, in pressGoogle Scholar
National Pork Board (NPB) 2008 Timely Euthanasia: Well-Being and Financial Implications. National Pork Board: Des Moines, USAGoogle Scholar
National Pork Board (NPB) 2017 Common Swine Industry Audit: Instructions, Standards and Audit Tool. National Pork Board: Des Moines, USAGoogle Scholar
National Pork Board (NPB) and American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) 2008 On-Farm Euthanasia of Swine: Recommendations for the Producer. National Pork Board: Des Moines, USAGoogle Scholar
Pivetti, M 2007 Natural and unnatural: activists’ representations of animal biotechnology. New Genetics and Society 26(2): 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636770701466840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, FAM, de Reu, K, Herman, L, Zoons, J and Sonck, B 2008 Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: assimilating expert opin-ion. Animal Welfare 17: 355–361Google Scholar
Roehe, R and Kalm, E 2000 Estimation of genetic and environ-mental risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality in piglets using generalized linear mixed models. Journal of Animal Science 70: 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800054692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, M, Roberts, JD, Perfumo, CJ, Alvarez, RM, Donovan, T and Almond, GW 2007 Assessment of sow mortality in a large herd. Journal of Swine Health and Production 15(1): 30–36Google Scholar
Scotney, RL, McLaughlin, D and Keates, HL 2015 A system-atic review of the effects of euthanasia and occupational stress in personnel working with animals in animal shelters, veterinary clin-ics, and biomedical research facilities. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 247(10): 1121–1130. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.247.10.1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straw, BE, Neubauer, GD and Leman, AD 1983 Factors affecting mortality in finishing pigs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 183(4): 452–455Google ScholarPubMed
Turner, P and Doonan, G 2010 Developing on-farm euthanasia plans. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 51(9): 1031–1034Google ScholarPubMed
Velarde, A, Fàbrega, E, Blanco-Penedo, I and Dalmau, A 2015 Animal welfare towards sustainability in pork meat production. Meat Science 109: 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Mullins et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 33.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mullins et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 39.2 KB