提供给荷兰流动屠宰单位的奶牛的质量福利风险

IF 2.1 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Frontiers in animal science Pub Date : 2023-09-14 DOI:10.3389/fanim.2023.1198055
Winanda W. Ursinus, Annika M. Voogt, Johan H. Bongers, Dick T. H. M. Sijm
{"title":"提供给荷兰流动屠宰单位的奶牛的质量福利风险","authors":"Winanda W. Ursinus, Annika M. Voogt, Johan H. Bongers, Dick T. H. M. Sijm","doi":"10.3389/fanim.2023.1198055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the Netherlands, a pilot was initiated of a mobile slaughter unit (MSU) for the killing of cull dairy cattle not fit for transport but suitable for slaughter, in order to save valuable meat. The Office for Risk Assessment & Research (BuRO) was asked to assess the risks for animal welfare. As a thorough risk assessment would have been very time consuming, a qualitative framework was used instead. The goal of the current study was to qualitatively describe the relevant risks for cow welfare involved in the use of an MSU compared with current practice by carrying out a rapid comparative risk assessment of animal welfare. The assessment framework consisted of the following steps: identification and description of scenarios, followed by assessment and comparison of the most relevant animal welfare risks in these scenarios, including hazard identification, hazard characterization, exposure, and characterization of the risk to animal welfare. Two main scenarios were identified, one with and one without an MSU. The second scenario was split into three sub-scenarios: killing on the farm/in a housing unit, emergency slaughter, and conventional transport to the slaughterhouse. The most relevant risks associated with operating an MSU were as follows: leaving the cow alive on the farm when it was not fit for slaughter; forcing the cow to walk to and into the MSU (however, this risk is likely higher under conventional transport of unfit cows); and insufficient stunning and bleeding, leading to questionable unconsciousness (however, this risk is likely higher in an emergency slaughter scenario). The MSU is a means of preventing the exacerbation of welfare deterioration in cows that are unfit for transport but fit for slaughter, and it reduces exposure to stressors (hazards) that are conventionally present during transport and at a stationary slaughterhouse. This rapid comparative risk assessment of animal welfare supported swift decision-making: the national competent authority (i.e., the NVWA in the Netherlands) and policymakers were able to improve and develop risk-mitigating actions and to decide on allowing the use of an MSU. When appropriately designed and used, and with sufficient supervision, mobile slaughter facilities can reduce welfare risks in cull dairy cows that are unfit for transport but fit for slaughter.","PeriodicalId":73064,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in animal science","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualitative welfare risks of cows offered to a Dutch mobile slaughter unit\",\"authors\":\"Winanda W. Ursinus, Annika M. Voogt, Johan H. Bongers, Dick T. H. M. Sijm\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fanim.2023.1198055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the Netherlands, a pilot was initiated of a mobile slaughter unit (MSU) for the killing of cull dairy cattle not fit for transport but suitable for slaughter, in order to save valuable meat. The Office for Risk Assessment & Research (BuRO) was asked to assess the risks for animal welfare. As a thorough risk assessment would have been very time consuming, a qualitative framework was used instead. The goal of the current study was to qualitatively describe the relevant risks for cow welfare involved in the use of an MSU compared with current practice by carrying out a rapid comparative risk assessment of animal welfare. The assessment framework consisted of the following steps: identification and description of scenarios, followed by assessment and comparison of the most relevant animal welfare risks in these scenarios, including hazard identification, hazard characterization, exposure, and characterization of the risk to animal welfare. Two main scenarios were identified, one with and one without an MSU. The second scenario was split into three sub-scenarios: killing on the farm/in a housing unit, emergency slaughter, and conventional transport to the slaughterhouse. The most relevant risks associated with operating an MSU were as follows: leaving the cow alive on the farm when it was not fit for slaughter; forcing the cow to walk to and into the MSU (however, this risk is likely higher under conventional transport of unfit cows); and insufficient stunning and bleeding, leading to questionable unconsciousness (however, this risk is likely higher in an emergency slaughter scenario). The MSU is a means of preventing the exacerbation of welfare deterioration in cows that are unfit for transport but fit for slaughter, and it reduces exposure to stressors (hazards) that are conventionally present during transport and at a stationary slaughterhouse. This rapid comparative risk assessment of animal welfare supported swift decision-making: the national competent authority (i.e., the NVWA in the Netherlands) and policymakers were able to improve and develop risk-mitigating actions and to decide on allowing the use of an MSU. When appropriately designed and used, and with sufficient supervision, mobile slaughter facilities can reduce welfare risks in cull dairy cows that are unfit for transport but fit for slaughter.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in animal science\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in animal science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2023.1198055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in animal science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2023.1198055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在荷兰,启动了一个流动屠宰单位(MSU)的试点,用于杀死不适合运输但适合屠宰的淘汰奶牛,以节省宝贵的肉类。风险评估办公室研究局(BuRO)被要求评估动物福利的风险。由于彻底的风险评估将非常耗时,因此使用了定性框架。本研究的目的是通过对动物福利进行快速比较风险评估,定性地描述使用MSU与目前做法相比所涉及的奶牛福利相关风险。评估框架包括以下步骤:识别和描述情景,然后评估和比较这些情景中最相关的动物福利风险,包括危害识别、危害表征、暴露和动物福利风险表征。确定了两种主要情况,一种是有MSU,另一种是没有MSU。第二种场景分为三个子场景:在农场/住房单元中屠宰,紧急屠宰和常规运输到屠宰场。经营MSU最相关的风险如下:当奶牛不适合屠宰时,将其留在农场;强迫奶牛走到MSU(然而,在传统的运输方式下,这种风险可能更高);休克不足和出血,导致令人怀疑的昏迷(然而,在紧急屠宰情况下,这种风险可能更高)。MSU是防止不适合运输但适合屠宰的奶牛福利恶化的一种手段,它减少了在运输和固定屠宰场中通常存在的压力源(危险)的暴露。这种对动物福利的快速比较风险评估支持了快速决策:国家主管当局(即荷兰的NVWA)和决策者能够改进和制定降低风险的行动,并决定是否允许使用MSU。如果设计和使用得当,并有足够的监督,流动屠宰设施可以减少不适合运输但适合屠宰的淘汰奶牛的福利风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Qualitative welfare risks of cows offered to a Dutch mobile slaughter unit
In the Netherlands, a pilot was initiated of a mobile slaughter unit (MSU) for the killing of cull dairy cattle not fit for transport but suitable for slaughter, in order to save valuable meat. The Office for Risk Assessment & Research (BuRO) was asked to assess the risks for animal welfare. As a thorough risk assessment would have been very time consuming, a qualitative framework was used instead. The goal of the current study was to qualitatively describe the relevant risks for cow welfare involved in the use of an MSU compared with current practice by carrying out a rapid comparative risk assessment of animal welfare. The assessment framework consisted of the following steps: identification and description of scenarios, followed by assessment and comparison of the most relevant animal welfare risks in these scenarios, including hazard identification, hazard characterization, exposure, and characterization of the risk to animal welfare. Two main scenarios were identified, one with and one without an MSU. The second scenario was split into three sub-scenarios: killing on the farm/in a housing unit, emergency slaughter, and conventional transport to the slaughterhouse. The most relevant risks associated with operating an MSU were as follows: leaving the cow alive on the farm when it was not fit for slaughter; forcing the cow to walk to and into the MSU (however, this risk is likely higher under conventional transport of unfit cows); and insufficient stunning and bleeding, leading to questionable unconsciousness (however, this risk is likely higher in an emergency slaughter scenario). The MSU is a means of preventing the exacerbation of welfare deterioration in cows that are unfit for transport but fit for slaughter, and it reduces exposure to stressors (hazards) that are conventionally present during transport and at a stationary slaughterhouse. This rapid comparative risk assessment of animal welfare supported swift decision-making: the national competent authority (i.e., the NVWA in the Netherlands) and policymakers were able to improve and develop risk-mitigating actions and to decide on allowing the use of an MSU. When appropriately designed and used, and with sufficient supervision, mobile slaughter facilities can reduce welfare risks in cull dairy cows that are unfit for transport but fit for slaughter.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Arterial pCO2 prediction using saphenous pCO2 in healthy mechanically ventilated dogs A systematic review of genotype-by-climate interaction studies in cattle, pigs, and chicken Lucerne meal in the diet of indigenous chickens: a review Assessing body condition scores, weight gain dynamics, and fecal egg counts in feedlot and non-feedlot cattle within high throughput abattoirs of the Eastern Cape Province Comparative study between scan sampling behavioral observations and an automatic monitoring image system on a commercial fattening pig farm
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1