Page 249 - The Welfare of Cattle

226 the WeLfare of CattLe

On-Farm euthanasia

Of all the welfare issues covered in this chapter, timely and properly conducted euthanasia would
represent the single greatest improvement in feedlot cattle welfare. By definition, euthanasia is the
ending of life in a way that minimizes or eliminates pain and distress (AVMA, 2013). Although
the definition is simple, the decision to follow through with the procedure and the criteria used to
make it are not. Consequently, animals may suffer unnecessarily if the criteria to euthanize are not
clear for staff that are placed in charge of carrying out this task. The general reasons for euthanasia
are well known and agreed upon by industry stakeholders and include poor health, disease, and
injury (Woods and Shearer, 2015). It should be noted that marketing a “poor doing” animal before it
reaches slaughter weight is not considered euthanasia but rather is known as “railing” or selling an
animal (usually at a discount) to eliminate future welfare problems. Salvage value is the main reason
producers will transport compromised and unfit cattle to slaughter even though it is inhumane and
in some cases illegal (Endres and Schwartzkopf-Genswein, 2018). Many countries have government
regulations or industry guidelines as to what constitutes fitness for transport. Some examples of
these would include when calving is imminent, broken leg, severe cancer eye, severe lameness, and
being newborn (CFIA, 2013).
Feedlots typically have designated pens (separate from the main feeding pens) where animals
can be moved to help manage poor health conditions. These pens are usually smaller, provide more
shelter, and are close to handling equipment to facilitate medical assessments and treatments. Cattle
that are acutely ill and are expected to recover quickly are usually treated and placed back in their
home pen while others needing follow-up treatments are placed in pens known as “hospital” pens
where they can be easily handled as needed to complete their treatment regimen and where they are
allowed to convalesce. Cattle that have not improved in condition following their stay in the hos-
pital, have relapsed, or require considerable time for recovery are placed in “chronic” pens where,
typically the prognosis for recovery is poor. Cattle that neither improve nor worsen in condition are
placed in “rail” pens. Feedlot animals that are at greatest risk of suffering due to delayed euthanasia
are those animals that are chronically ill.
While the general reasons for euthanasia are straightforward, the specific reasons used to decide
an animal’s fate are where many gray areas exist, predominantly related to the severity of the condi-
tion. Institutions such as the North American Meat Institute NAMI (2008), AVMA (2013) and CFIA
(2013) have complied lists of conditions to guide producers, veterinarians, auction and abattoir staff
as well as truckers and inspectors when euthanasia is required. The most common conditions include:
emaciation, nonambulatory, severe cancer eye, chronic disease with poor prognosis (i.e., chronic
respiratory disease or severe lameness), fractures of the leg, hip or spine that are irreparable, trauma
or other conditions causing excruciating pain, transmissible disease (i.e., rabies, foot, and mouth),
birth is imminent, and in heavy lactation. As it is difficult and impractical to have a reference list of
all possible conditions and scenarios where euthanasia is required, producers must often use their
own discretion or seek veterinary advice. Even when the condition is clearly defined, decisions to
euthanize are usually based on additional criteria such as the severity of the condition as well as
the likelihood of recovery. Both of these criteria are highly subjective and can be influenced by a
producer’s knowledge, past experience, sensitivity, emotional connection to the situation as well as
gender, culture, religion, or age (Wood and Shearer, 2015). Wood and Shearer (2015) provide a com-
prehensive list of indicators of pain and distress such as inappetence, vocalization, etc., that can aid
producers in assessing the severity of an animal’s condition. It should be noted that indicators of pain
should be used in conjunction with the duration they are exhibited to accurately assess an animal.
Defining the cutoff between what is acceptable (or unacceptable) management of a compromised
animal is highly important. As suggested by Grandin and Johnson (2009), the criteria for euthanasia
must be strict enough to prevent suffering but not so strict that an animal capable of recovery is not
allowed to be nursed back to health. Most producers do not like putting an animal down and describe